Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using Fuzzy-Topsis in Drug Distribution Center Location Selection Thummamateta

APPLICATION OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING USING FUZZY-TOPSIS IN DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER LOCATION SELECTION

THUMMAMATETA TREEVIROTMONGKOL

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING (INDUSTRIAL ENGINEEERING) FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY 2013

Thesis entitled APPLICATION OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING USING FUZZY-TOPSIS IN DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER LOCATION SELECTION

….……………………………………… Miss Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Candidate

….……………………………………… Lect. Jirapan Liangrokapart, Ph.D. Major advisor

...……………………………………….. Lect. Kiattisak Sritrakulchai, Ph.D. Co-advisor

.....……………………………………… Lect. Mongkol Thianwiboon, Ph.D. Co-advisor

..…...………………………………...... ใ …..…...………………………………...... Prof. Banchong Mahaisavariya, Asst. Prof. Thanakorn Naenna, Ph.D. M.D., Dip. Thai Board of Orthopedics Program Director Dean Master of Engineering Program in Faculty of Graduate Studies Industrial Engineering Mahidol University Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University

Thesis entitled APPLICATION OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING USING FUZZY-TOPSIS IN DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER LOCATION SELECTION

was submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies, Mahidol University for the degree of Master of Engineering (Industrial Engineering) on December 13, 2013

.....…………………………………...... Miss Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Candidate

…………………………………...... …………………………………...... Lect. Jirapan Liangrokapart, Ph.D. Capt. Kridiwat Suttiwaree, RTN. Member Ph.D. Chair

...... ………………………………...... ………………………………….... Lect. Kiattisak Sritrakulchai, Ph.D. Lect. Mongkol Thianwiboon, Ph.D. Member Member

…………………………………...... ………………………………...... Prof. Banchong Mahaisavariya, Lect. Worawit Israngkul, M.S. M.D., Dip. Thai Board of Orthopedics Dean Dean Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Graduate Studies Mahidol University Mahidol University iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thesis would be able achieve with advice and support from many person. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my major advisor, Dr. Jirapan Liangrokapart. She spent her precious time to suggest me and continued assist throughout this study. I would like to thank Dr . Kiattisak Sritrakulchai , Dr. Mongkol Thianwiboon and Capt.Dr.Kridiwat Suttiwaree. They suggested the importance in this research and support as my advising committee. Besides, I would like to thank all experts. They give the opinions in drug distribution center criteria. I will remember their kindness. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my family, especially my father and mother, for their love, encouragement, understanding and financial supporting along thesis study.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. Thesis / iv

APPLICATION OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING USING FUZZY-TOPSIS IN DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER LOCATION SELECTION

THUMMAMATETA TREEVIROTMONGKOL 5337533 EGIE / M

M.Eng. (INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING)

THESIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: JIRAPAN LIANGROKAPART, Ph.D., KIATTISAK SRITRAKULCHAI, Ph.D., MONGKOL THIANWIBOON, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT Due to the 2011 flood crisis in Thailand, a number of drug manufacturers were inundated with flood water for a few months. Some drug manufacturers were not directly impacted by the flooding, but they could not distribute of drug products to their customers due to the transport disruptions. This resulted in a shortage of drugs supplies to many hospitals, especially those in the remote areas of the country. The purpose of this research is to identify the essential criteria for drug supply distribution; and determine and propose the best district in Bangkok for establishing a drug distribution center that will be able to operate during a flood crisis. The 15 criteria were finalized, and nine experts were asked to rate the criteria. The 50 districts were evaluated using fuzzy TOPSIS in order to select the best location for establishing drug distribution center. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to measure the weight of criteria impacts on the drug distribution center location. However, the result may be different as the weight of each criteria changes.

KEY WORDS: DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER / LOCATION SELECTION / DISRUPTION / MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING

220 pages

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. Thesis / v

การประยุกต์ใช้ MULTICRITERIA DECISION MAKING ด้วยวิธี FUZZYTOPSIS ในการเลือก ทีตังศูนย์กระจายยา APPLICATION OF MULTICRITERIA DECISION MAKING USING FUZZYTOPSIS IN DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER LOCATION SELECTION

ธัมมาเมตตา ตรีวิโรจน์มงคล 5337533 EGIE / M

วศ.ม. (วิศวกรรมอุตสาหการ)

คณะกรรมการทีปรึกษาวิทยานิพนธ์: จิรพรรณ เลียงโรคาพาธ, Ph.D., เกียรติศักดิ ศรีตระกูลชัย, Ph.D., มงคล เทียนวิบูลย์, Ph.D.

บทคัดยอ่ ในปี พ.ศ.2554 เกิดวิกฤตการณ์อุทกภัยในประเทศไทย ผู้ผลิตยาถูกนําท่วมนานหลาย เดือน ผู้ผลิตยาบางรายไม่ได้รับผลกระทบโดยตรงแต่ไม่สามารถกระจายยาได้เนืองจากการขนส่งไม่ สะดวก ซึงส่งผลเกิดการขาดแคลนยาในโรงพยาบาลโดยเฉพาะอยางโรงพยาบาลทีอยู่ ไกล่ งานวิจัยนี จึงมีจุดประสงค์เป็นการค้นหาเกณฑ์ทีสําคัญและเขตทีดีในกรุงเทพมหานครสําหรับจัดตังศูนย์ กระจายยาทีสามารถดําเนินงานในระหวางนํ่ าท่วมได้ เกณฑ์ทีครบถ้วนทัง 15 เกณฑ์และถูกควบคุม โดยผู้เชียวชาญทัง 9 ท่านนํามาใช้ในการให้คะแนน การเลือกทีตังศูนย์กระจายยาจาก 50 เขตใช้วิธี fuzzy TOPSIS ส่วน sensitivity analysis ใช้ในการทดสอบถึงนําหนักเกณฑ์ทีมีผลต่อการเลือกทีตัง อยางไรก่ ็ตามผลของทีตังมีการเปลียนแปลงเมือนําหนักของเกณฑ์เปลียน

220 หน้า

CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) iv ABSTRACT (THAI) v LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background and problem 1 1.2 Objectives 5 1.3 Scope of work 5 1.4 Expected results 5 1.5 Organization of the study 5 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEWS 6 2.1 Distribution center 6 2.1.1 Distribution center : the definition 6 2.1.2 The activity of distribution center 6 2.1.2.1 Receiving 6 2.1.2.2 Storing 7 2.1.2.3 Picking 7 2.1.2.4 Dispatching 7 2.1.3 The advantage of distribution center 8 2.2 Hospital supply chain and the role of Drug Distribution Center 8 2.2.1 Hospital supply chain 8 2.2.2 Drug distribution center 9 2.2.2.1 The tasks of drug distribution center 10 2.2.2.2 The advantage of drug distribution center 11

vii

CONTENTS (cont.)

Page 2.2.2.3 Why is the location selection for establishing 11 drug distribution center important? 2.3 Theory of methodology 11 2.3.1 Multi-Criteria location Problem 11 2.3.2 Fuzzy TOPSIS 13 2.3.3 Why use Fuzzy TOPSIS technique 19 2.4 The Criteria for Location Selection 20 2.4.1 General Criteria 21 2.4.2 Healthcare specific Criteria 24 2.5 The flooding situation in 2011 28

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 30 3.1 Research Methodology 30 3.1.1 Identify the Location Selection Criteria 30 3.1.2 Select the potential location 39 3.1.3 Evaluate criteria by experts’ opinion 40 3.1.4 Collect the data of each location 40 3.1.5 Evaluate the location using fuzzy TOPSIS 40 3.1.6 Sensitivity analysis 40 3.1.7 Construct the drug distribution center location selection 40 program

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 43

4.1 The evaluated criteria by experts’ opinion 43 4.2 The data of location 45 4.3 The evaluated location using fuzzy TOPSIS 47 4.4 Sensitivity analysis 54 4.5 Drug distribution center location selection program 58 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 62 viii

CONTENTS (cont.)

Page REFERENCES 64 APPENDICES 74

Appendix A Number of hospitals by type and province 75

Appendix B The criteria data of 50 districts 78

Appendix C The questionnaire of location for establishing drug 106

distribution center (English)

Appendix D The questionnaire of location for establishing drug 109

distribution center (Thai)

Appendix E The information of experts 112

Appendix F The evaluation of location from experts’ opinion 113

Appendix G The result of sensitivity analysis 179

Appendix H 2012 International conference on industrial engineering 209

and management systems submitted paper

BIOGRAPHY 220

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1.1 Top 10 Natural Disasters in Thailand for the period 1900 to 2012 sorted 3 by numbers of killed 1.2 Top 10 Natural Disasters in Thailand for the period 1900 to 2012 sorted 3 by economic damage costs 2.1 Linguistic variables for alternatives 15 2.2 Linguistic variables for criteria 15 2.3 Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies 20 3.1 General criteria for Location selection from literature review 32 3.2 Specific healthcare criteria for location selection from literature review 34 3.3 The location selection criteria and definition 36 4.1 The final criteria 44 4.2 The linguistic definition of criteria 48 4.3 The ranking of districts for location drug distribution center 54 4.4 The top five ranking of districts for location drug distribution center 55 A.1 The number of hospitals by type and province 75 B.1 The hospitals in 50 districts 78 B.2 The land cost, dust, waste, voice and labor in 50 districts 83 B.3 The station of sky electric train and the underground electric train in 50 85 districts B.4 The number of piers and the bus number in 50 districts 88 B.5 The number of Train station, entrance to expressway and exit to 93 expressway in 50 districts B.6 The drug distributor in 50 districts 94 B.7 The drainage tunnel and the Royally-Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke in 97 50 districts B.8 The elevation above mean sea level and flood history in 50 districts 101 B.9 The measures to prohibit truck traffic 103 x

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Page B.10 The crime in 50 districts 104 E.1 The list of experts 112 F.1 Aggregate fuzzy weights for criteria 113 F.2 National environment and its impact criteria weights for alternatives 116 F.3 Accessibility criteria weights for alternatives 117 F.4 Labor criteria weights for alternatives 118 F.5 Connectivity to multimodal transport criteria weights for alternatives 119 F.6 Government and regulations criteria weights for alternatives 120 F.7 Demand criteria weights for alternatives 121 F.8 Infrastructure criteria weights for alternatives 122 F.9 Security criteria weights for alternatives 123 F.10 Information technology criteria weights for alternatives 124 F.11 Flooded management criteria weights for alternatives 125 F.12 Topography criteria weights for alternatives 126 F.13 Country planning criteria weights for alternatives 127 F.14 Cost criteria weights for alternatives 128 F.15 Competition criteria weights for alternatives 129 F.16 Density of traffic criteria weights for alternatives 130 F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives 131 F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS 144

F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives 157

F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives 167

F.21 Closeness coefficients (CC i) of the 50 districts 177 G.1 The result of equal weight all criteria 199 G.2 The result of highest weight national environment and its impact, 201 accessibility, labor and connectivity to multimodal transport criteria G.3 The result of highest weight government and regulations, 203 demand, infrastructure and security criteria xi

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Page G.4 The result of highest weight information technology, flooded 205 management, topography and country planning criteria G.5 The result of highest weight cost, competition and density of 207 traffic criteria

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1.1 The total economic damages and losses from the 2011 flood in 4 Thailand as of December 1, 2011 2.1 Distribution center in supply chain 7 2.2 Hospital supply chain 8 2.3 Pharmaceutical supply chains from supplier to patient 9 2.4 Drug distribution model 10 2.5 A triangular fuzzy number ͕Ȭ 14 2.6 Two triangular fuzzy numbers 14 2.7 The basic flow chart of fuzzy TOPSIS 16 3.1 Steps of methodology 31 3.2 The map of Bangkok 39 3.3 The drug distribution center location selection drug program flowchart 42 4.1 The experts’ opinion on each criteria on average 45 4.2 The number of districts to each criteria 53 4.3 Weight the criteria 58 4.4 Weight the districts on each criteria 1 59 4.5 Weight the districts on each criteria 2 59 4.6 Calculation by Fuzzy-TOPSIS 1 60 4.7 Calculation by Fuzzy-TOPSIS 2 60 4.8 The result of location 61 B.1 The country planning of Bangkok 105

G.1 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 179 (all criteria are very low)

G.2 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 180 (all criteria are low)

G.3 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 181 (all criteria are medium) xiii

LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Figure Page

G.4 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 182 (all criteria are high)

G.5 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 183 (all criteria are very high)

G.6 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 184 (highest weight of national environment and its impactcriterion)

G.7 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 185 (highest weight of accessibility criterion)

G.8 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 186 (highest weight of labor criterion)

G.9 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 187 (highest weight of connectivity to multimodal transport criterion)

G.10 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 188 (highest weight government and regulations criterion)

G.11 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 189 (highest weight of demand criterion)

G.12 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 190 (highest weight of infrastructure criterion)

G.13 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 191 (highest weight of security criterion)

G.14 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 192 (highest weight of information technology criterion)

G.15 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 193 (highest weight of flooded management criterion)

G.16 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 194 (highest weight of topography criterion)

G.17 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 195 (highest weight of country planning criterion) xiv

LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Figure Page

G.18 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 196 (highest weight of cost criterion)

G.19 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 197 (highest weight of cost criterion)

G.20 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis 198 (highest weight of density of traffic criterion)

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and problem The drug distribution center is one of the important players in healthcare supply chain which distributes drugs to the hospitals before the drugs are prescribed to the patients. The efficiency of distribution is necessary for patients safety and professional services because drug is one of the four necessities for people living. There are many reasons that distribution centers cannot operate effectively, hence drugs cannot be delivered to customers correctly. Cause of the disruption may be from natural disasters such as flooding, earthquake, storming, and tsunami or from other made disruption. The top 10 national disaster based on the number of killed and the economic damage costs during 1990-2012 are shown in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2. From both tables, flooding has been the important problem in Thailand for 112 years in term of skilled and cost. The recent flooding during 2011 and mid-January 2012 cause more than 800 people died and 13.6 million people were affected by the flood (Emergency Operation Center for Flood, Storms and Landslide, 2012). From the World Bank report, there were 65 provinces in Northern, Northeastern and Central of Thailand damaged and costed about 1,425 billion Baht. Of which, the manufacturing sector suffered the biggest damages and loses of 1,007 billion Baht (The World Bank, 2011) (Figure1.1). According to the Ministry of Public Health, over 10 drug factories of 393 drugs manufacturers in Bangkok and surrounding provinces were affected directly from the flood (The Government Public Relations Department, 2011). Like other organizations and industries, many of drug manufacturers had shut down during crisis due to the factories had been under the flood water or their employees could not go to work. The production lines were down for shortage of materials, energy or labors. Some drug manufacturers did not get the direct impact from the flooding, but they could not operate and distribute drugs to their customers due to transport disruption. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Introduction / 2

Although some drug manufacturers in flood–free area did not get the direct impact from the flood, the raw material suppliers could not distribute raw material for their production. Some main roads were inaccessible and indirect routes were used for transportation instead. The transportation interruption increased travel time and costs. These had a big impact on the entired hospital supply chain including manufacturers, distributors, hospitals, and the end customers-the patients (Liangrokapart, 2012). As a result, a lot of hospitals have experienced the stock shortage of drugs and medical supplies due to the transport disruption and the end customers had got all the shortage risks. In particular, the patients in emergency department or intensive-care units may get the worst impact from the drug shortage. As the transportation disruption was the major problem on the drug shortage in many hospitals, it was challenging to find solutions for solving the problem. The Minister of Public Health, Wittaya Buranasiri has instructed to the government on 1 November, 2011 to solve the problems urgently. The alternatives are to find new drug manufacturers distributors for replacement, to import drugs and to distribute the drugs fast to the target hospitals (Irin, 2011). This is corresponded with the perspectives and recommendation from hospital executives, drug manufacturers, drug distributors, and representatives of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the open public session and personal interview. Thus, one possible solution is to build a new drug distribution center located on the flood-free zone area with full accessibility during the crisis so that the distribution center could continue transfer drugs to the customers without any disruption. In order to find the best new location for the distribution center, a number of factors should be identified and considered. Therefore, research questions are 1) What are the factors to be considered for establishing a drug distribution center? 2) Where is the best location to establish a drug distribution center to be saved from disruption?

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 3

Table 1.1 Top 10 Natural Disasters in Thailand for the period 1900 to 2012 sorted by numbers of killed (The Global Emergency Events Database (EM- DAT), 2012) Numbers of Disaster Date Killed Earthquake (from tsunami in the southern area) December 2004 8,345 Flood (65 provinces) August 2011 813 Storm (made landfall in Nakhon Si Thammarat October 1962 769 Province) Flood (Nakhon Si Thammarat province) November 1988 664 Earthquake ( near Patani province) June 1955 500 Tropical Storm Gay (the coast of Chumphon November 1989 458 Province) Flood (in the southern area) October 2010 258 Flood (in the north center area) January 1975 239 Flood ( in the center area ) August 1995 231 Flood (Uttaradit, Sukhothai, Phrae, Lampang and August 2006 164 Nan Provinces)

Table 1.2 Top 10 Natural Disasters in Thailand for the period 1900 to 2012 sorted by economic damage costs (The Global Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), 2012) Disaster Date Damage (1000 US$) Flood (65 provinces) August 2011 40,000,000 Flood (Nakhon Si Thammarat Province) November 1993 1,261,000 Flood (affected from tsunami) December 2004 1,000,000 Earthquake (in southern area) November 1989 452,000 Tropical Storm Vicente (Bangkok) January 2005 420,000 Drought (in north-east area) December 1993 400,100 Flood (in northern area) August 1978 400,000

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Introduction / 4

Table 1.2 Top 10 Natural Disasters in Thailand for the period 1900 to 2012 sorted by economic damage costs (continued)

Disaster Date Damage (1000 US$) Flood (in northern and center area) January 1984 400,000 Flood (Nakhon Si Thammarat October 1993 319,850 Province)

This research presents the location selection concept for drug distribution center using multi-criteria decision making. It is used to manage information and difference decision makers’ opinion for choosing alternative. It applied fuzzy theory to model multiple criteria decision. The vagueness or unclear information which qualitative criteria and the rating of each alternative location f rom decision makers can be converted to fuzzy number. Th en, the fuzzy number was analyzed and used for location selection for drug distribution center.

Manufacturing sector 1,007 billion baht Tourism sector 95 billion baht Housing sector 84 billion baht Agricultural sector 40 billion baht

Figure 1.1 The total economic damages and losses from the 2011 flood in Thailand as of December 1, 2011 (The World Bank, 2011 )

In this research , we use the technique called TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Situation) which has been used to solve fuzzy multi - criteria decision making problems in several industries (Perçin (2008) , Krohling et al. (2011), Ho (1993) and Shyjith et al., (2012)) Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 5

1.2 Objectives The objectives of this research are following: 1.2.1 To identify the essential criteria for selecting a drug distribution center location. 1.2.2 To propose the best district in Bangkok for establishing a drug distribution center which can still operate during flood crisis.

1.3 Scope of work This research considers only the 50 districts in Bangkok as possible location for establishing a drug distribution center which can still operate during flood crisis. The other unavoidable situation such as war, civil war, overthrow, protest, terrorism, sabotage, rebellion, closed road, riot or other natural disasters are not included in this study.

1.4 Expected results 1.4.1 A list of the essential criteria to be considered for location selecting for a drug distribution center. 1.4.2 The proposed best district in Bangkok for establishing a drug distribution center which can still operate during flood crisis.

1.5 Organization of the study In this study is divided as follows. Chapter 2 presents literature reviews. In chapter 3, presents the research methodology. In chapter 4, presents result and discussion. Finally, the conclusion is presented.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEWS

This chapter shows the related literature reviews for this research. We separate this chapter into four sections: 1) Distribution center 2) Hospital supply chain and the role of Drug Distribution Center 3) Theory of methodology 4) The Criteria for Location Selection and 5) The flooding situation in 2011.

2.1 Distribution center

2.1.1 Distribution center : the definition A distribution center (DC) is defined as a warehouse or specialized building which stores the products under the suitable type, dimension, volume, temperature and humidity to deliver to the customers (Sorat, 2009). It links between manufacturers and customers to flow finish products in the supply chain (shown in Figure 2.1). The good practice of distribution centers resulted in reducing inventory level, inventory carrying cost, the final price of the product and processing time in order processing. The key factors for location decision that affect retailers’ decisions to choose the manufacturer’s products are delivery time, quality, total cost, and ability to meet consumers’ urgent/special needs (Korpela and Lehmusvaara, 1999).

2.1.2 The activity of distribution center involves the four processes as follows (Shiau and Lee, 2010; Sorat, 2012). 2.1.2.1 Receiving Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 7

Figure 2.1 Distribution center in supply chain (Raksri, 2010)

The receiving process is the first process that the products arrive to distribution center, the receiving department should order to get products out of the carrier to the specific area. Next, inspect the products such as number, size, weight, condition, and price follow distribution center’s invoice or the invoice that come with the trucks. After that, indicate the product code and the position of product. 2.1.2.2 Storing Move products to the shelf in the right position. The condition of storage is suitable for especially products. Such as, grain can keep fresh if store in low temperature (Liu and Ma, 2012). 2.1.2.3 Picking This process is to retrieve the products from their storage locations to satisfy customer orders and group the products that ordered from the same customer. 2.1.2.4 Dispatching This process is to redistribute the finished products to the retailers, wholesalers, or consumers. The products before distributed are checked follow the order, packed, and loaded in carrier. The distribution center provides the customer to deliver with 5Rs - Right Time, Right Place, Right Quantity, Right Quality, and Right Price.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 8

2.1.3 The advantage of distribution center (Shiau and Lee, 2010) 1) Distribution center consolidates the products from many manufacturers to distribute the same customers. 2) Distribution center chooses the appropriate intermodal transshipment to proper each customer region. 3) Distribution center assorts products and packs allowed customer orders. 4) Distribution center helps supply chain to flow products thus, the supply chain is perfectly.

2.2 Hospital supply chain and the role of Drug Distribution Center

2.2.1 Hospital supply chain Gui-sheng (2010) described the hospital supply chain composed of participants, activities, and the three flows - logistic flow, capital flow and information flow. The main participants are suppliers, the hospital and patients which involve the value-added activities and processes to planning, coordinating, controlling and optimizing (shown in Figure 2.2). The aim of the service to patients is 6 Rs - right product, right quantity, right quality, right state, right time, and right place. Bourlakis et al. (2011) presented the supplier provided drugs and services to the customers-the hospitals, and the hospitals deliver the service to the end customers-the patients.

Figure 2.2 Hospital supply chain Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 9

The pharmaceutical supply chain which comprise of organizations, processes, and operations shown in Figure 2.3. The supply chain is composed of one or more suppliers, manufacturers, warehouses/distribution centers, wholesalers, and retailers-the hospitals (Shah, 2004). The manufacturer orders the raw material from suppliers, produces drug and supply to the distributor. The raw material suppliers produce chemical for drug production. The drugs in supply chain are domestic drug and imported drug. The distributor supports drugs to the retailers-the hospitals, pharmacies, clinics but the retailer in this research is hospital. However, the pharmaceutical supply chain is not similar to other supply chain because required high follow to ensure security and strict regulations such as good manufacturing practice (GMP) (Yadav et al., 2011). Vibulpolprasert et al. (2002) defined drug distribution center as a warehouse or specialized building to distribute drugs to customers.

Figure 2.3 Pharmaceutical supply chains from supplier to patient (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2011)

2.2.2 Drug distribution center Most of the drug distribution centers are belonged to private organization except one belong to the government. There are totally 116 drug distribution centers and a Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO) (Vibulpolprasert et al., 2002). According to companies’ directory in MIMS (Thailand) (2008), the main private drug distribution centers are Zuellig Pharma Ltd., DKSH (Thailand) Ltd., and BJC Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 10

Healthcare Co, Ltd. Zuellig Pharma Ltd. is the distributor for 46 pharmaceutical manufacturers, DKSH (Thailand) Ltd. is the distributor for 39 pharmaceutical manufacturers and BJC Healthcare Co, Ltd. is the distributor for 16 pharmaceutical manufacturers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2003) and Deloitte Consulting LLP (2008) explained three models of the drug movement through the drug distribution system (Figure 2.4). Model 1 is the simplest that manufacturer sell directly to the retailer. This model is suitable for high-price drugs with a limited provider. Many manufacturers use model 2, there are one distributor or even a repackager but model 3 differ from model 2 that there are more distributors. The manufacturer delivers bulk drug containers to distributor and the distributor often repackages into smaller containers before sale to the retailer.

Figure 2.4 Drug distribution model (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2003)

2.2.2.1 The tasks of drug distribution center (World Health, 2010) Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 11

The task of distribution center is depended on agreement between the drug owner and distributor. Drug distributors are classified into the drug owner’ distributor and employ distributor (third party logistics). The services of distributor are procuring, purchasing, holding, storing, selling, supplying, importing, exporting, or movement of drugs, with the exception of the dispensing or providing drugs directly to a patient. 2.2.2.2 The advantage of drug distribution center (Marr, 1989) Increase convenience to the hospital/pharmacies to order drugs. A service from efficient distribution is greater increasing opportunity for activities at the retail level, ensuring a competitive advantage. Drug distribution center services specific requirement, such as relabeling and insert the necessary information drug depending on country. 2.2.2.3 Why is the location selection for establishing drug distribution center important? In hospital executives’ opinion for Healthcare Supply Chain Disaster Management seminar (2012), the director of hospitals agree with establishing a new drug distribution center for supporting hospital during flood crisis (Metetrirat et al., 2012). Bangkok Hospital changed the number of stocked drugs from using 90 days to 110 days. Songklanagarind Hospital also changed the number of stocked drugs from two months to four months because they afraid drug shortage. The new location of a drug distribution center that able operate during flood crisis is used to solve this problem.

2.3 Theory of methodology

2.3.1 Multi-Criteria Location Problem Many criteria are considered for best location selection that is important to manage scientific, social, and economic, and to reduce the wrong decision. The location selection is one of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem due to many criteria considered in decision process. The main task of decision making is to Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 12 collect related information, rank the bound of the feasible alternatives, and select appropriate alternative (Zhou et al., 2011). There are many techniques to solve multi- criteria decision making problem. The example of widely utilized techniques areas are Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Analytic network process (ANP) as follow: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of multi-criteria decision making method. AHP technique was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in 1970s that compare the relative elements in each level of the hierarchy and evaluates the alternatives in the lowest level of the hierarchy to select the best decision among multiple alternatives (Sipahi and Esen, 2010; Triantaphyllou and Mann, 1995). The weight of important criteria is obtained by using a set of pair wise comparisons. The example for application of AHP technique that Tsita and Pilavachi (2012) used AHP to choose the fuel for the Greek road transport sector. Triantaphyllou and Mann (1995) used to find the best alternative to upgrade the computer system of a computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) facility. Wu, Chen et al. (2012) used AHP to weight the performance evaluations of higher education combined VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I KompromisnoResenje (VIKOR) method to rank the performance of each university. Analytic network process (ANP) is proposed by Thomas L. Saaty, the author of the AHP method in 1996. ANP represent the relationships of hierarchy, but it does not strict about a hierarchical structure as AHP (Liu et al., 2005 ). Öztay şi et al. (2011) used ANP to compare the customer relationship management (CRM) performance of e-commerce firms. Atmaca and Basar (2012) determine the suitability of existing power plants in Turkey by ANP method. The location selection problem is considered many alternative locations with multi-criteria. The multi-criteria decision making is classified into two categories: the multi-attribute decision-making (MADM), and the multi-objective decision- making (MODM) (Zanjirani Farahani and Hekmatfar, 2009; Hwang and Yoon, 1981). The multi-attribute decision-making technique is considered the limited alternative and each alternative response to each objective in a specified level. The best alternative satisfies to the priority of each objective and the interaction between them. The popular technique to solve this problem are dominant, maximin, maximax, conjunctive method, disjunctive method, lexicographic method, elimination by Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 13 aspects, permutation method, linear assignment method, simple additive weighting (SAW), hierarchical additive weighting, ELECTRE, TOPSIS, hierarchical tradeoffs, LINMAP, interactive SAW method and MDS with ideal point. The multi-objective decision-making technique is considered various components and the best alternative is attained some acceptable levels from a set of some objectives. The used techniques to solve this problem are global criterion method, utility function, metric L-P methods, bounded objective method, exico graphic method, goal programming, goal attainment method, method of Geoffrion, interactive GP, surrogate worth trade off, method of satisfactory goals, method of Zionts-Wallenius, STEM and related method, SEMOPS and SIGMOP method, method of displaced ideal, GPSTEM method, method of Steuer, parametric method, C-constraint method and adaptive search method.

2.3.2 Fuzzy TOPSIS After collect criteria from literature review and consider potential location, we ask the decision makers to select and weight the appropriate criteria for using in location selection. The decision maker’ opinions are the speech that difficult to translate to the number but fuzzy help to change the quality data to quantity data (Bellman and Zadeh, 1970). The definitions of fuzzy sets are expressed as follows (Klir, 1992; Klir, 1995; Zimmermann, 1995).

Definition 1. A universe of discourse, X, whose generic elements are indicated by x. The value of membership of x in fuzzy set is defined by where . → 0,1 , ∀ ∈ Definition 2. A triangular fuzzy number can be denoted as a triplet . The membership function of fuzzy number defined by = , ,

0, ≤ – (1) , ≤ ≤ = – , ≤ ≤ 0, > Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 14 where and are real numbers. The in gives the maximal grade of <

0 Figure 2.5 A triangular fuzzy number Definition 3. Let and be two triangular fuzzy numbers in Figure = 2.6 Then , the, distance between= , the, m is defined using the vertex method as

(2) , = − + − + −

0 Figure 2.6 Two triangular fuzzy numbers

The linguistic variable is defined as a variable of word or sentence in language (Dursun and Karsak, 2010). The decision’s opinion is vagueness usually expressed by linguistic term and set into fuzzy number. This research uses the Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 15 judgment values of linguistic with triangular fuzzy numbers. The reason for using a triangular fuzzy number is that is easy to use and calculate (Kannan et al., 2009; Liang and Wang, 1994). The rating of criteria and alternative are linguistic variables and apply a scale of 1-9. Table 2.1 presents the linguistic variables and rating of alternatives and Table 2.2 lists the linguistic variables and rating of criteria (Wang and Lee, 2007; Kayikci, 2010; Awasthi et al., 2011; Mokhtarian and Hadi-Vencheh, 2012).

Table 2.1 Linguistic variables for alternatives Linguistic terms Membership function Very poor (VP) (1, 1, 3) Poor (P) (1, 3, 5) Fair (F) (3, 5, 7) Good (G) (5, 7, 9) Very good (VG) (7, 9, 9)

Table 2.2 Linguistic variables for criteria Linguistic terms Membership function Very low (VL) (1, 1, 3) Low (L) (1, 3, 5) Medium (M) (3, 5, 7) High (H) (5, 7, 9) Very high (VH) (7, 9, 9)

Fuzzy is a mathematical way to represent and manipulate linguistic, vagueness information and other fuzzy data (Chen, 2001; Anagnostopoulos, Doukas et al., 2008). This research uses technique called TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Situation). Hwang and Yoon (1981) that developed first stated TOPSIS is a new multi-criteria decision making tool. That based on positive and negative idea. The solution which has been as chosen alternative are shortest distance from positive solution and farthest distance from the negative ideal solution (Jahanshahloo et al., 2006) as shown in Figure 2.7. The major ingredients of Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 16 decision process are 1) a group of alternatives 2) a group constrains of choice and 3) a performance function of each alternative that resulting from selecting (Bellmanand and Zadeh, 1970).

Figure 2.7 The basic flow chart of fuzzy TOPSIS. (Bu et al., 2012)

This technique is presented many benefits. Selçuk (2008) gives TOPSIS method is systematic more than the other fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (FMCDM) methods and able to understand a human’s vagueness when considered this problem. Jiang et al. (2011) used the TOPSIS method with Fuzzy Belief Structure model to solve Group Belief multiple criteria decision making problems. Kannan et al. (2009) used Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and TOPSIS technique for selection process of best third-party reverse logistics providers. The step of TOPSIS can be expressed into 9 steps (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Jahanshahloo et al., 2006; Wang and Lee, 2007):

2.3.2.1 Evaluated the performance ratings and weights with linguistic terms. Assume are j possible alternatives that decision makers have to select, , , are … , m criteria which measured the alternative performance. These criteria, are, … two , type–best criteria and cost criteria. Both the best criteria that the highest value and the cost criteria that the least value use for the best location selection. The criteria weights are given by . The = 1,2,…, Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 17 performance ratings of each decision makers for each alternative with respect to criteria = 1,2,.., are denoted by = 1,2,…, = with 1,2,…, membership function .= =1,2,…,; =1,2,…,;2.3.2.2 Calculate =1,2,…, aggregate fuzzy ratings for the criteria and the alternatives. If the fuzzy ratings of all decision makers are denoted as triangular fuzzy numbers , then the aggregated fuzzy rating is given by = , , ,, =1,2,…, where = , , , = 1, 2, … , = , 1 = , (2.1) If the fuzzy rating and important weight = of the. kth decision maker are and = respectively, , , then the aggregated fuzzy= ratings, , , of alternatives = 1,2,…,, with = respect 1,2,…,, to each criterion are given by where = , , = , 1 = , (2.2) The aggregated fuzzy weights = of each criterion. are calculated as where = , , = , 1 = , (2.3) 2.3.2.3 Calculate = the fuzzy decision. matrix. The fuzzy decision matrix for the alternatives and the criteria is formed as follows: Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 18

… (2.4) … = = 1, 2, … , = 1, 2, … , ………… … (2.5) 2.3.2.4 = Standardize, , . . . , the fuzzy decision matrix. The raw data are standardized using a linear scale transformation to bring the various criteria scales onto a comparable scale. The normalized fuzzy decision matrix is given by (2.6)

= ̃ , =1,2,….,;=1,2,…., where best criteria : and (2.7) ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ̃ = , , =

cost criteria : and (2.8) ̃ = , , = 2.3.2.5 Calculate the weighted normalized matrix.

The normalized matrix for criteria is calculated by multiplying the weights of evaluation criteria with the normalized fuzzy decision matrix : ̃ where (2.9) = , =1,2,…,;=1,2,…, 2.3.2.6 Calculate the fuzzy ideal solution= ̃ . (FPIS) and the fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS).

The FPIS and FNIS of the alternatives are calculated as follows:

where (2.10) ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ = , , … , = where (2.11) = , , … , = . 2.3.2.7 = 1,Calculate 2, … , ; the distance = 1, 2, …of , each alternative from FPIS and FNIS. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 19

The distance of each weighted alternative i = 1, 2 , . . ∗ ., m from the FPIS and the FNIS is computed , as follows: (2.12) ∗ ∗ = ∑ , , = 1, 2, … , (2.13) Where is the distance = ∑measurement , between , = two 1, 2, fuzzy … , numbers . , 2.3.2.8 Calculate the closeness coefficient a and) of b each alternative. The closeness coefficient represents the distances to the fuzzy positive ideal solution (A ) and the fuzzy negative ideal solution ( A-) ∗ simultaneously. The closeness coefficient of each alternative is calculated as

(2.14) ∗ = , = 1, 2, … , 2.3.2.9 Rank the alternatives. Ranking order the alternatives are according to the closeness coefficient in decreasing order and choose the alternative from the highest closeness coefficient. The chosen alternative has the shortest distance from the FPIS and the farthest distance from the FNIS.

2.3.3 Why use Fuzzy TOPSIS technique Hosseini et al. (2012) and Wang (2008) present the main advantages of TOPSIS compare with other basic MCDM methods are easy to use, can consider into all types of benefit criteria and cost criteria, the practitioners are intelligible and reasonable in logic of TOPSIS, the calculation of process is straightforward, the concept allows a simple mathematical manner to find the best alternatives, and the importance weights can be combine in methodology conveniently. Table 2.3 is shown the comparison of multi-criteria decision making methodologies as TOPSIS, AHP, and ELECRE.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 20

Table 2.3 Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies. (Özcan et al., 2011; Sipahi and Esen, 2010; Saaty, 2008)

Characteristics TOPSIS AHP ELECTRE

Calculating Creating Determining distance to hierarchical concordance and 1. Core process positive and structure and pair discordance negative ideal wise comparison indexes point matrices

2. Necessity to quantify the relative Yes Yes Yes importance of criteria

No specific Pairwise No specific 3. Determining of method. Linear or comparison method. Based on weights vector matrices 1–9 decision maker. Normalization. scale.

4. Consistency None Provided None Check

Large number of Little number of Large number of alternative and alternative and alternative and 5. Problem criteria, objective criteria, criteria, objective Structure and quantitative or and quantitative quantitative data qualitative data data

Global, Global, 6. Final results A kernel net ordering net ordering

2.4 The Criteria for Location Selection The pharmaceutical supply chain are not similar other supply chain Thus, the criteria collected from literature review are divided into two major areas: general criteria and healthcare criteria.

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 21

2.4.1 General Criteria Previous studies related to the opinion of decision making in selecting criteria for location planning have been studied. Farahani et al. (2010) started that reviewed about multi-criteria location problems in three categories of bi-objective, multi-objective and multi-attribute problems. The major criteria from this research are ‘cost’, ‘environmental risk’, ‘service level’, ‘coverage’ and ‘other criteria’: ‘resource accessibility’, ‘economical criteria’, ‘distances including closeness to markets’ or ‘customers, suppliers and resources’, ‘political matters and regulations’ and ‘competition’. Awasthi et al. (2011) proposed a multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning. These criteria for urban distribution centers are ‘accessibility’, ‘security’, ‘connectivity to multimodal transport’, ‘costs’, ‘environmental impact’, ‘proximity to customers’, ‘proximity to suppliers’, ‘resource availability’, ‘conformance to sustainable freight regulations’, ‘possibility of expansion’, and ‘quality of service’. Another work was done by Chou et al. (2008) who presented a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for international tourist hotel location selection. ‘Access’, ‘rest resources’, ‘surrounding environment’, ‘convenience’, ‘internal development’, ‘external development’, ‘human resource’ and ‘operating conditions’ are criteria in their research. Farahani and Asgari (2007) investigated the location distribution centers for military logistics system. The list of attributes is ‘natural environment’, ‘military’, ‘economical’ and ‘infra-structures’. Demirel et al. (2010) studied five main criteria and 16 sub-criteria. These main criteria are ‘costs’, ‘labor characteristics’, ‘infrastructure’, ‘market’ and ‘macro environment’. The sub-criteria of cost are ‘labor costs’, ‘transportation cost’, ‘tax incentives and tax structures’, ‘financial Incentives’, and ‘handling costs’. The sub-criteria of labor characteristics are ‘skilled labor’ and ‘availability of labor force’. The sub-criteria of infrastructure are ‘the existence of modes of transportation’, ‘telecommunication’, and ‘quality and reliability of modes of transportation’. The sub-criteria of market are ‘proximity to customers’, ‘proximity to suppliers’, ‘lead times’ and ‘responsiveness’. The sub-criteria of macro environment are ‘policies of government’, ‘industrial regulations laws’, and ‘zoning and construction plan’. The descriptions of each criteria are followed:

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 22

2.4.1.1 Cost Farahani et al. (2010) divided ‘cost’ into two types including fixed costs and variable costs. The fixed costs are start up cost including investment cost and the variable costs are transportation, operations, production, services, distribution, logistics, waste disposal, maintenance, and environmental cost. The transportation cost is adjust to the economic structure of the alternative regions, transportation facilities and alternative transportation types such as air, land, railroad, and marine (Demirel et al., 2010). 2.4.1.2 Natural environment That is the condition of climate, weather, geological, hydrological and topography. The climate contains the statistics of temperature, rain, humidity, atmospheric pressure and wind. The weather is a set of atmospheric in area. The geological is the condition earthquake intensity, flood history and interruption of earth. 2.4.1.3 Accessibility This criterion is the ease to reach the distribution center by public and private transportation. 2.4.1.4 Labor The labor criteria is defined as the personnel for a work, who has qualities to work and the number of labor (Demirel et al., 2010). 2.4.1.5 Quality of service Quality service means timely delivery, delivery to the right place, the right customers, and delivery of the undamaged goods (Demirel et al., 2010). 2.4.1.6 Connectivity to multimodal transport The transport is performed in a reliable and qualified way between at least two different modes such as highways, railways, seaport, and airport. The different transport modes affected to the reliability of customer and quality of service (Demirel et al., 2010). 2.4.1.7 Conformance to sustainable freight regulations Ability to conform to sustainable freight regulations imposed by municipal administrations e.g. restricted delivery hours, special delivery zones. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 23

2.4.1.8 Competition The condition of organizations contests at least one other firm over the same group of customers to be leadership. 2.4.1.9 Demand The customers require amount of products that willing to buy. The basic demand relationship is between prices of a good and the quantities that increase price influences to decrease quantity. 2.4.1.10 Proximity to customers This criterion is defined as the distance of the distribution center location to the customer (Demirel et al., 2010; Awasthi et al., 2011). 2.4.1.11 Economic The condition of economy influences to the distribution center e.g. currency value, exchange rate, market demand etc. 2.4.1.12 Resource availability Availability of raw materials and packaging are able to respond the requirement of distribution center’s order. 2.4.1.13 Infrastructure The structure of organization is required to operate the services that provide to support the structure of development. Infrastructure refers to the water and electricity supply infrastructure. 2.4.1.14 Possibility of expansion Distributor is able to manage the growing demand by expand the size, productivity, amount of workers. 2.4.1.15 Density of traffic The number of vehicles in the area of the roadway from suppliers to distribution center or distribution center to customers. 2.4.1.16 Environmental impact The distribution center affected positive or negative on the environment such as air pollution, noise. 2.4.1.17 Political regulations Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 24

The political regulation is difference from a region to another region (Demirel et al., 2010). It is included tax exemptions, investment facilities and various incentives. 2.4.1.18 Proximity to suppliers This criterion is defined as the distance of the distribution center location to the suppliers or producers (Demirel et al., 2010; Awasthi et al., 2011). 2.4.1.19 Security The security is the degree of protection of drug distribution center from damage, loss, crime, theft, vandalism, and accident. 2.4.1.20 Lead time This criterion is defined the ability and the period of time to fulfill the order (Demirel et al., 2010). 2.4.1.21 Product feature The characteristics and qualities of product – its size, material, shape, and functionalities are required by customers and benefit to the owner. The usefulness of product is targeted the customer for buying and used for a product marketing strategy. 2.4.1.22 Cultural issues The international firm’s distribution center able adapts to the different culture. 2.4.1.23 Information technology Using computer-base information system support or manage to store, transmit and operate database. 2.4.1.24 Profit The amount of income is obtained from the distributor’s service that exceeds the expenses, costs and taxes. 2.4.1.25 Coordination Ability of the distributor to manages the different thing, activity or people to work together for achievement.

2.4.2 Healthcare specific Criteria Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 25

Healthcare business has an important role for the society. Since people were born until death, all have to involve with hospital services. Fail to get healthcare services at the time they need will have a severe impact to their safety (Liangrokapart, 2012). Therefore the continuous service of the hospitals, especially during the crisis is extremely important. The hospitals should have sufficient supply of drugs, medical devices, medicinal gas and other products to serve the patients at all time. The suppliers must put all effort to distribute their products to the hospitals in order to ensure that the end customers, the patients, will get the right products at the right quantity, at the right quality, at the right place and at the right time. A good location for continuous products distribution to the hospital should be determined and the criteria to be considered should be identified . Previous studies have been done in the healthcare research related to location selection. Wu et al.( 2007) studied the optimal selection of location for Taiwanese hospitals using six evaluation criteria which are ‘factor conditions’, ‘demand conditions’, ‘firm strategy, structure and rivalry’, ‘related and supporting industries’, ‘government’ and ‘chance’ and 18 sub-criteria including ‘capital’, ‘labor’, ‘land’, ‘population number’, ‘population density’, ‘population age distribution’, ‘management objective’, ‘rank of competing hospitals’, ‘policymaker’s attitude’, ‘the medicine practice and the pharmaceutical sector’, ‘hospital administration sector’, ‘the healthcare sector’, ‘qualifications of the hospital’s establishment and the regulations of the established standard’, ‘efforts to promote a medical network’, ‘promulgating tasks that require a hospital assessment’, ‘violent change in market demand’, ‘dramatic fluctuations in production costs’ and ‘significant changes in the financial market and exchange rate’. Simango (1993) presented strategic factors which ‘low corporate tax’, ‘base for EC entry’ and ‘skilled manpower’ that attracts US and European pharmaceutical multinational enterprises to locate in Ireland. While Dunlap and Golub (2011) recommended that the focus should include ‘focus outreach efforts near drug markets’, ‘overlook drug possession’, ‘provide access to private areas near shelters’, ‘continue rescue efforts’ and ‘provide drug maintenance and counseling services’ for disaster management. Dong et al. (1999) described the drug policy reform in China that advantage to reduces the cost, reduce the length of the chain between producer and user, and improve their production in China has been used to reform government Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 26 production plan to market demand. Especially during disaster, ‘the focus outreach efforts near drug markets criteria’ is important to reach poor drugs users that related to reduce drug users risk (Dunlap and Golub, 2011). The healthcare-specific criteria are summarized in Table 2.5. From the table, Some criteria for location selection for healthcare criteria are also in general criteria consist of ‘Demand’, ‘Labor’, ‘Quality of service’, ‘Infrastructure’, ‘Accessibility’, ‘Resource availability’, ‘Political regulations’, ‘Possibility of expansion’, ‘Economic criteria’, ‘Information technology’, and ‘Environmental impact’. The remaining healthcare criteria are explained as followed:

2.4.2.1 Focus outreach efforts near drug markets The numbers of potential drugs are likelihood reaching to the requirement of poor drugs users that they can be safely provided during crisis. 2.4.2.2 Population Population is the numbers of people live in the local area that is the local demand (Wu et al., 2007). 2.4.2.3 Firm strategy, structure and rivalry The conditions of firm influence to establish, continue practice the management and organize efficiency. 2.4.2.4 Government Governmental policy controls drug distribution center for establishing and qualifications of the drug distribution center that strengthens the competitiveness includes the standard regulations of the established, efforts to promote a medical network and promulgating tasks (Wu et al., 2007). 2.4.2.5 Chance The situation which has no negative influence to the drug distribution center such as the decreasing market demand, and fluctuations in production costs. 2.4.2.6 Distance to nearest hospital The criterion is the distance from the drug distribution center to the nearest hospital. That hospitals are distribution center’s customers. So, it is affect to transport time to service customers. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 27

2.4.2.7 Overlook drug possession The ability of drug distributor will be more compliant with disaster management directives. 2.4.2.8 Provide access to private areas near shelters During the crisis, drug distributor able to distribute drug to users that able to consume drugs sufficiently in unmonitored area. 2.4.2.9 Continue rescue efforts It is important to convenient services to the hospitals that supported for as long as safely patients. 2.4.2.10 Provide drug maintenance and counseling services Drug distribution center can help relieve drug shortage by support sufficient drug because during the crisis, the drug requirement is increasing. 2.4.2.11 New registration regulations The distributors who cannot inept to follow the regulation continue to run the drug business. 2.4.2.12 Drug distribution channels The various distribution technology channels of drugs are procurement of technologies, know-how for innovative drugs affect to increasing market demand. 2.4.2.13 Adoption of international standards The distribution center should pass good distribution practice (GDP), good storage practice (GSP) certification for good manufacturing practices, and management systems. 2.4.2.14 Goal of site selection process The distribution center able to serve drug to the rural hospital that increase drugs distribution efficiency. 2.4.2.15 Emergency preparedness concerns The ability of distribution center responses the rapid increasing demand for emergency time. 2.4.2.16 Competitive prices The price is one important factor for the customers to decide the service. So, the lower price effects to the high competitive. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Literature Review / 28

2.4.2.17 Reduce costs by way of less linkage and competition The short linkage of drug supply chain by the drug factories can sell drug to the retailer directly. 2.4.2.18 International tax differentials For the foreign firm, the tax is one factor to consider operating in that country. The low rate of tax is more responsive from the investors. 2.4.2.19 Material shelf-lives Material shelf-lives is the length of time that drugs can be stored, continue effective and safe. The benefit of shelf-life is used to establish the expiry date of each batch.

2.5 The flooding situation in 2011 The severe flooding triggered by the land fall of Tropical Storm Nok-ten and spread through the northern provinces, the northeastern province, and central of Thailand. The floodwaters entered to the 31 districts of Bangkok in October 2011. The causes of flooded in Bangkok are the heavy rainfall, the overflow from river, the effect of high tides from the sea, the land subsidence and the low efficiency of drainage system (Phamornpol, 2012). During flooded, the Royal Irrigation Department drain flooded water base on the drainage capacity via eastern Bangkok, western Bangkok and the Chao Phraya River to solve the problem. The capacity by pump is 26.18 million cubic meters per day via western Bangkok and 37.78 million cubic meters per day via eastern Bangkok. While the Chao Phraya River empties about 300 million cubic meters per day by pumps and natural water flow (The Nation, 2011). Associate Professor Dr. Seree Supratid, director of the Climate Change and Disaster Centre of Rangsit University, said the increase of urban area, the volume of rainfall, the land subsidence and the increase of sea level are the major cause of flood. He proposed the government to construct the dyke to protect the high tides, increase water retention areas and dredge canals for problem-solving. Dr. Pichit Rattakul, the consultant of Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, said the natural Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 29 disasters of Bangkok are the flood water from the sea and the Chao Phraya River. Thus, the elevation above mean sea level is one indicator of the subsidence area that the cause of flood. The essence of His Majesty’s flood relief initiatives by prevent an overflow from outside areas, release the excess water from inside areas and allocate the areas to store excess water for subsequent release after the floods have subsided (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, 2011). Thus, the dykes are initiated from the King’s ideas. Mr. Apirak Kosayodhin, former governor of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), propose the long-term solutions to manage the flood water are manage the water system, strict the country planning regulation especially drainage area, and expand “Kaem Ling” – water retention areas project. Land use change is an important factor increasing flood severity (Emde, 2012). Associate Professor Dr. Seree Supratid said the vital cause of flood in the future is the change of environmental that the reduction of green zone and empty area. Professor Dr. Thanawat Jarupongsakul state to adjust the city planning and land use to relieve flooding (MCOT, 2013). He said the problem of country planning is not to solve from the government. Thus, good country planning manage is help to flow the floodwater to the river and the sea. To summarize, the critical review of the concepts and frameworks in the fields of drug distribution center and hospital supply chain suggests the following key points that would be a helpful guide in the improvement of a conceptual framework on the location selecting drug distribution center. A method to evaluate the location in this study is Fuzzy TOPSIS. It is easy to calculate and consider into all types of criteria. The criteria, general criteria and healthcare criteria, from literature review use to evaluate the location. Each criteria will be selected by expert if it is related to the location of drug distribution center as described in Chapter III. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Methodology / 30

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter described the research methodology used identify the location selection criteria, select the potential location, evaluate criteria by experts’ opinion, collect the data of each location, evaluate the location using fuzzy TOPSIS sensitivity analysis and construct the drug distribution center location selection program.

3.1 Research Methodology From Figure 3.1, the criteria and multi-criteria location decision making methods from related literature were reviewed and the detailed step-by-step of the methodology are as follows.

3.1.1 Identify the Location Selection Criteria All location selection criteria collected from literature reviews and the opinion of decision makers were divided into two categories-general criteria and healthcare criteria. The outcome of first step was a set of location selection criteria for drug distribution center. 3.1.1.1 Identify the general criteria This step started from 25 general location criteria were listed down in Table 3.1. Four criteria – cost, competition, density of traffic, environmental impact are classified into the cost criteria while the remaining criteria are the best criteria. Those criteria were ranked by the frequency of citations. In this research, only the criteria cited by 4 literatures or more were used. 3.1.1.2 Identify the healthcare criteria The 30 healthcare-specific criteria were also collected from literature review. The list of healthcare-specific criteria was shown in Table 3.2. Both environmental impact and international tax differentials are the cost criteria but the Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 31

Figure 3.1 Steps of methodology

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Methodology / 32 excess of criteria are the best criteria. Due to the limit of number of literatures, only the criteria cited by two literature or more were used. 3.1.1.3 Combined general and healthcare specific criteria and select criteria by expert. The criteria from 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2 were combined to 24 criteria and used as location criteria selection. Three experts were asked to confirm if the selected criteria seems to be reasonable to be used in the further study. The questionnaire was shown in Appendix C.

Table 3.1 General criteria for Location selection from literature review

Criteria Reference

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [8], [9], [10], [13], [15], 1. Cost [16], [17], [20], [21], [22], [24] [1], [6],[7], [10], [11], [12], [14], [15], [19], 2. Natural environment [20], [21], [23] [1], [4], [5], [6], [10], [11], [14], [15], [16], 3. Accessibility [17], [18], [19] [2], [5], [6], [8], [9], [10], [13], [15], [19], 4. Labor [21], [23]

5. Quality of service [1], [2], [4], [6], [7], [12], [15], [16], [23], [24]

6. Connectivity to multimodal [4], [5], [7], [8], [13], [16], [17], [19], [22] transport 7. Conformance to sustainable [1], [2], [4], [7], [8], [9], [11], [12], [16] freight regulations

8. Competition [1], [2], [5], [6], [8], [12], [14], [15], [23]

9. Demand [4], [6], [7],[9], [11], [12], [15], [18]

10. Proximity to customers [1], [5], [6], [8], [13], [14], [16], [22]

11. Economic criteria [1], [3], [12], [15], [17], [19], [25]

12. Resource availability [1], [4], [5], [6], [11], [16], [23] Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 33

Table 3.1 General criteria for Location selection from literature review (cont.) Criteria Reference

13. Infrastructure [13], [15], [17], [18], [19], [20], [23] 14. Possibility of expansion [1], [2], [9], [12], [16], [22] 15. Density of traffic [5], [7], [8], [13], [20], [23] 16. Environmental impact [1], [2], [4], [15], [16], [18] 17. Political regulations [1], [4], [5], [13], [14], [17] 18. Proximity to suppliers [5], [13], [14], [16], [21] 19. Security [1], [5], [16], [18] 20. Information technology [1], [4], [7], [12] 21. Product feature [2], [15], [23] 22. Cultural issues [4], [5], [18] 23. Lead time [7], [12], [13] 24. Profit [1], [5] 25. Coordination [4]

[1] Farahani and Asgari (2007) [14] Mokhtarian and Hadi-Vencheh [2] Liu, Chan et al. (2011) (2012) [3] Yang, Ji et al. (2007) [15] Ren, Xing et al. (2011) [4] Kayikci. (2010) [16] Awasthi, Chauhan et al. (2011) [5] Chou, Hsu et al.(2008) [17] Cheng and Tsai (2009) [6] Boufounou. (1995) [18] Ou and Chou (2009) [7] Kuo. (2011) [19] Farahani and Asgari (2007) [8] Kahraman, Ruan et al. (2003) [20] Li, Liu et al. (2011) [9] Chen. (2001) [21] Azadeh, Ghaderi et al. (2011) [10] Chou, Chang et al. (2008) [22] Schwartz (1999) [11] Ocalir, Ercoskun et al. (2010) [23] Huang, Yu et al. (2012) [12] Lee and Lin (2008) [24] Bu, Van Duin et al. (2012) [13] Demirel, Demirel et al. (2010) [25] Suárez-Vega, Santos-Peñate et al. (2012) Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Methodology / 34

Table 3.2 Specific healthcare criteria for location selection from literature review

Criteria Reference

1. Demand* [1], [4], [9]

2. Labor* [1], [2], [8]

3. Quality of service* [2], [5], [8]

4. Infrastructure* [2], [5], [9]

5. Focus outreach efforts near drug [3], [4], [10] markets

6. Accessibility* [1], [6]

7. Resource availability* [1], [9]

8. Political regulations * [8], [10]

9. Population [1], [2]

10. Firm strategy, structure and rivalry [1], [5]

11. Government [1], [8]

12. Possibility of expansion* [1]

13. Economic criteria* [1]

14. Information technology* [1]

15. Environmental impact* [1]

16. Chance [1]

17. Distance to nearest hospital [2]

18. Overlook drug possession [3]

19. Provide access to private areas near [3] shelters

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 35

Table 3.2 Specific healthcare criteria for location selection from literature review (cont.)

Criteria Reference

20. Continue rescue efforts [3]

21. Provide drug maintenance and counseling [3] services 22. New registration regulations [4]

23. Drug distribution channels [4]

24. Adoption of international standards [4]

25. Goal of site selection process [5]

26. Emergency preparedness concerns [6]

27. Competitive prices [7] 28. Reduce costs by way of less linkage and [7] competition 29. International tax differentials [11]

30. Material shelf-lives [11] * These healthcare criteria are the same as general criteria.

[1] Wu, Lin et al.(2007) [7] Dong, Bogg et al. (1999) [2] Sinuany-Stern , Mehrez et al.(1995) [8] Simango. (1993) [3] Dunlap and Golub (2011) [9] Elke A. Pioch and Schmidt (2001) [4] Chan and Daim (2011) [10] Craig and Malek (1995) [5] Bennett, Eaton et al.(1982) [11] Susarla and Karimi (2011) [6] Shah (2004)

3.1.1.4 Define Each Criterion The selected criteria from Step 3.1.1.3 were defined and shown in Table 3.3. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Methodology / 36

and taxes and shine, humidity pal administrationspal hways, railways, Definition roducts, and whether the ofroducts, be needs whether market the and can ls. e resources,e logistics, resource, drivers, services s or the number the s or competitor. of nsport modes to the location. ours, special delivery special ours, zones. eological, hydrological, eological, (e.g. sun topography rain, nd response time service.nd response

o sustainable freighto sustainable regulations imposed by munici location with multiple modes of transport, e.g. hig e.g. transport, location with multiple modes of inition Criteria Criteria 3. Accessibility 4. Labor 5. service Quality of 6. Connectivity to multimodal by public private Access and tra Connectivity the of Capability to a appropriate etc.). of skil number the and Sufficient labors transport transport to sustainable7. Conformance Ability t to conform airport etc. seaport, freight regulationsfreight 8. Competition 9. Demand restricted delivery e.g. for h Capability against to compete other of number p the The customers purchases fulfilled. adequately 1. Cost 1. Cost environment2. Natural condition weather, The of g Costs vehicl capital, land, in acquiring location. the for etc. Table 3.3 The location selection criteria andTable criteria selection 3.3 def The location Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 37 tion system he water and and he electricitywater supply infrastructure. Definition ncy value, rate,ncy market exchange demand etc.). al distribution center infrastructure infrastructure distributional communicaand center .) .) om location to customers. the suppliers the or lations to support business. rials and labor resources labor and rials in location. the environment, for example,pollution, air for environment, noise. rom location to suppliers. rom location to customers. the demand. growing inition (cont Criteria Criteria 10. Proximity to customers distance time The and f 11. Economic 12. Resource availability 13. Infrastructure mate Availability raw of condition economy curre The of (e.g. nature of and extent The physic 14. Possibility expansion of Capability to manage traffic15. Density of 16. impact Environmental of frequency is use fr The location of Impact on the 17. Political regulations to convenience availability the and and t access 18. Proximity to suppliers and rules legal Good regu distance time The and f Table 3.3 The location selection criteria andTable 3.3 def The criteria location selection

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Methodology / 38 nt. then then and competitors and icularly icularly merce and merce es the distribution drug establishment center’s medicalefforts and to a promote network Definition s population population number, density and rank of of rank competition policymaker’s attitudes. and lishing in distribution drug order to streng center m damage, loss,m damage, vandalism, theft, crime, accide and .) .) med population.med the likelihood reaching of a users, drugs poor part gy information receives or sends logistics, for com ter ter establishment, practic organization, management inition (cont Criteria Criteria 19. Security 19. Security is distribution Drug fro center safe 20. Information technology20. Information ability technolo The of 21. Focusefforts outreach markets drug * near will maximize Drugs be 22. Population * poorly infor and recalcitrant 23. Firm structure strategy, activities. financing distribution Drug cen market medical demand The include distribution. population age and rivalry * rivalry and management all influence objective, 24. Government *24. Government policy towards Governmental estab criteria * healthcare-specific Note includescompetitiveness their of qualifications the of regulations the standard, and established promulgating tasks. Table 3.3 The location selection criteria andTable 3.3 defThe criteria location selection

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 39

3.1.2 Select the potential location Bangkok is the province which has highest number of hospital in Thailand (123 hospitals) (see Appendix A) and has convenient transportation. So, this research chose Bangkok as a case study to locate the drug distribution center. The 50 districts in Bangkok are Bangbon, Bangkapi, Bangkhae, Bangkhen, Bangkholaem, Bangkhunthian, Bangna, Bangphlat, Bangrak, Bangsue, Bangkoknoi, Bangkokyai, Buengkum, Chatuchak, Chomthong, Dindaeng, Donmueang, Dusit, Huaykhwang, Khannayao, Khlongsamwa, Khlongsan, Khlongtoei, Laksi, Latkrabang, Latphrao, Minburi, Nongchok, Nongkhaem, Pathumwan, Phasicharoen, Phayathai, Phrakhanong, Phranakhon, Pomprap, Prawet, Rajburana, Ratchathewi, Saimai, Samphanthawong, Saphansung, Sathon, Suanluang, Talingchan, Thawiwatthana, Thonburi, Thungkhru, Wangthonglang, Watthana, and Yannawa districts (Administrative strategy division, 2012). The map of Bangkok is shown in Figure 3.2. The districts were considered as possible location for drug distribution center.

Figure 3.2 The map of Bangkok.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Methodology / 40

3.1.3 Evaluate criteria by experts’ opinion The nine experts were be asked to ratings for the criteria. These experts worked in general distribution center, drug distribution center, hospital, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Thai Logistics and Production Society, and Thai Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. The questionnaires were shown in Appendices D. Five ratings of criteria in questionnaire are very low to very high. The two experts from Bangkok Metropolitan Administration were asked to review the criteria from literature review and the criteria for flood protection were added. After that, the other experts were be asked to evaluate these criteria.

3.1.4 Collect the data of each location The data of location in each criteria was collected to weight location where the 50 districts in Bangkok. The data of locations were presented in Appendix B.

3.1.5 Evaluate the location using fuzzy TOPSIS The tool for evaluating the location in this study was called fuzzy TOPSIS. The concept was the selected alternative should have the shortest distance from the positive ideal and the farthest distance from the negative ideal solution (Jahanshahloo, 2006; Wang, 2007; Anagnostopoulos, 2008). From the concept theory of fuzzy TOPSIS in chapter 2 was applied to identify criteria and location in this step. The result of this step was the best location for drug distribution center.

3.1.6 Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analyses were used to find the impact of criteria weights on the potential location. This step was necessary for the unstable situation to identify the important from other criteria. For this research, the 20 experiments are used to sensitivity analysis. The weights of all criteria are equal for five experiments. The other experiments are set one criteria weight as highest weight and the remaining criteria weights as lowest weight.

3.1.7 Construct the drug distribution center location selection program Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 41

Drug distribution center location selection program was constructed to find the new drug distribution center location. It will help to select the location where is able to operate during a flood crisis. The program flowchart illustrating the sequence of operations to solve a location problem is shown in Figure 3.3. The display of program and how to use the program are presented in the next chapter. Therefore, these steps of methodology are used to find the real location of drug distribution center in Bangkok. The result and discussion of best district is presented in Chapter IV. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Methodology / 42

Figure 3.3 The drug distribution center location selection program flowchart Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 43

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is the research results from the methodology in Chapter III. This chapter presents the evaluated criteria by experts’ opinion, the data of location, the evaluated location using fuzzy TOPSIS, sensitivity analysis and drug distribution center location selection program.

4.1 The evaluated criteria by experts’ opinion The 9 experts worked in relative field were asked for ratings criteria (Appendix E). Three experts work in private drug distribution center with at least 5 years experience. One expert works in local distribution center and has 18 years experience. Two experts have at least 3 years experience in Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. One expert has more than 10 years of hospital working experience. One expert has worked in some logistics society. The other expert has been working in some pharmaceutical association for 5 years. The 24 criteria as started in Chapter 3 were included in the questionnaires to ask the experts. Whether or not they are sufficient for selecting a drug distribution center. Three additional criteria were suggested by the experts including country planning, flooded management and topography. Then the experts helped to combine the criteria that have similar meaning and omit non-significant criteria. The final criteria suggested by experts and would be used for further calculation are cost, natural environment and its impact, accessibility, labor, connectivity to multimodal transport, government and regulations, competition, demand, infrastructure, density of traffic, security, information technology, flooded management, topography and country planning. The examples of the combination include natural environment and environmental impact and the new criterion is the national environment and its impact. The demand, focus outreach efforts near drug markets and population were also Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 44 combined to “Demand” criterion. The political regulations, conformance to sustainable freight regulations and government were combined into “government and regulations”. The criteria, proximity to customers, proximity to suppliers, resource availability and lead time, are not significant for drug distribution center because the location of the customers and suppliers are spread out over Bangkok and resources are available. The “quality of service” and “possibility of expansion” do not involve much with location selection. “Economic criteria” is the same for all location. Finally, the “possibility of expansion” and “firm strategy and structure” are internal factors which are not included in this study. Therefore, the final criteria used in this study are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 The final criteria.

Criteria

1. Cost 2. National environment and its impact

3. Accessibility 4. Labor

5. Connectivity to multimodal transport 6. Government and regulations

7. Competition 8. Demand

9. Infrastructure 10. Density of traffic

11. Security 12. Information technology

13. Country planning* 14. Flooded management*

15. Topography Regulation* *Additional criteria from the experts’ opinion

However, three additional criteria - flooded management, topography, and country planning criteria are additional criteria from experts’ opinion. The flooded management criterion is the flood prevention systems in district to use the drainage tunnel or the Royally-Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke. The drainage tunnels drain floodwater from flooded areas to the Chao Phraya River directly while the dyke slowed down the overflow of floodwater from the northern region or river. The Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng. (Industrial Engineering) / 45 topography criterion is the average height of land from the above mean sea level in the area. If the area is high from mean sea level, the probability of safety from flooding is increased. The c ountry planning criteri on is the laws of land usage that refer to diagrams and special operation to improve the land for benefit. Figure 4.1 reports the experts’ opinion on each criteri on on average . From the experts’ opinion, the important criteria was ‘accessibility’, ‘cost’, ‘ connectivity to multimodal transport’, and ‘ flooded management’.

Accessibility 4.56 Cost 4.22 Connectivity to multimodal transport 4.22 Flooded management 4.22 Density of trafic 4.00 Information technology 4.00 Infrastructure 3.88 Demand 3.88 Topography 3.88 Country planning 3.78 Government and regulations 3.77 Labor 3.56 National environment and its impact 3.44 Security 3.33 Competition 3.11

0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 4. 1 The experts’ opinion on each criteria on average

4.2 The data of location The data were collect to support the criteria from the experts’ opinion (shown in Appendix B) . In term of cost criterion, the fixed cost that able calculates is the land cost. Because of the different customer location , the transportation cost is difficult to calculate. Bang Rak, Pathum Wan, Samphanthawong , Sathon and Yan Nawa districts are the top five of maximum land cost. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 46

In the same province, the climate are similar all districts. So, the environment condition is waste, air and voice, while the geological is flood history for measurement. The least waste of district is Samphanthawong district, the least dust is Din Daeng district, and the least voice is Phra Khanong district. From the history of flooding area, 12 districts were not flooding in 2011 and 1995 but 11 districts were flooded two times. The connectivity to multimodal transport criteria is collected data of the number of train station, entranced and exited expressway. Six districts have all type of multimodal transports. There are 17 districts have the train station, 17 districts have the entranced expressway and 17 districts have the exited expressway. In case of accessibility criterion, the public transport modes are underground electric train, skytrain, bus and ferryboat. There are six districts have all types of transportation. Moreover, there are not all type of transportation in 25 districts. For the regulation criterion, the GMP strict for the condition of drug distribution center, whereas that not limited the location. The regular of transportation is shown in Table B.8. The truck can reach into 13 districts all time, while the other districts, the truck can reach sometime. Almost districts are supplied water and electrified. The Memorandum of Understanding of Pipeline Water Supply Emergency (MOU) is the project to supply the tap water to the non water area in Bangkok. So, 90% of the Bangkok area is water supply in MOU4. But electrified is supplied all area in Bangkok (Alternative Energy and Efficiency Information Center, 2011). The number of hospitals in Bangkok are 28 government hospitals and 95 private hospitals. The hospitals are in all districts except Bangkok Yai, Khlong Sam Wa, PhraKhanong, PhraNakhon, Taling Chan, ThungKhru and Yan Nawa. While, all districts have the signal of 3G internet for receiving information. The internet data was collected before 19 July, 2013. The 19 districts is in the 46.4% of all occurrence crime in Bangkok but 31 districts is in the area that less than 30% of all occurrence crime. Half of all districts are located over three drug distribution center but drug distribution center is not in 24 districts. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 47

For flooded management criterion, the Royally-Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke is in 24 districts-the Eastern Bangkok Flood Dyke is in 18 districts and the Western Bangkok Flood Dyke is in 6 districts. The seven completed drainage tunnels are Drainage tunnel from Makkasan Pond to the Chao Phraya River, Rama IX- Ramkhamhaeng drainage tunnel, Drainage tunnel at Soi Sukhumvit 26, Drainage tunnel at Soi Sukhumvit 36, Drainage tunnel at Soi Sukhumvit 42, Drainage tunnel at Prem Prachakon Canal, and Drainage system at Phaya Thai District and three drainage tunnels in the future projects are Drainage tunnel beneath Bang Sue Canal, Drainage tunnel from Nong Bon Pond to the Chao Phraya River, and Drainage tunnel at Bang Khen Canal. The future projects are in ten districts and eight districts have these completed drainage tunnels. The height of 31 districts area less than one meter, nine districts are 1-2 meter, and the others are over 2 meter from the mean sea level. The country planning laws classify the usage of land into eight categories - housing land, commercial land (red zone), Industrial land (purple zone), Warehouse land (violet zone), rural preservation and agriculture land (White with frame and green bias zone), Rural and agricultural land (green zone), conservation and promotion of Thai Culture land (Light brown zone), and government institutions, public assistance and infrastructures land (blue zone) (see in Appendix B). The housing land divided into three levels – low (yellow zone), medium (orange zone), and high residential density (brown zone). The distribution center forbidden construct into low residential density land, rural preservation and agriculture land, and conservation and promotion of Thai Culture land . All area of low residential density land is in 21 districts and all area of conservation and promotion of Thai Culture land is in 12 districts. While, all area of rural preservation and agricul ture land is in Bang Khae, Bang Khun Tian, Khlong Sam Wa, Lat Krabang, Min Buri, Nong Chok, Taling Chan and Thawi Watthana. These data use for the next step of methodology.

4.3 The evaluated location using fuzzy TOPSIS In case using fuzzy TOPSIS, the 15 criteria are classified into cost criteria and best criteria. The cost criteria are cost, competition, and density of traffic while the Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 48 remaining criteria are the best criteria. However, the 15 criteria are classified to benefit criteria and cost criteria for using TOPSIS method. The benefit criteria are accessibility, connectivity to multimodal transport, regulations, labor, natural environment, infrastructure, demand, security, information technology, flooded management, topography, and country planning criteria. The cost criteria are cost, competition, and density of traffic. The data for using fuzzy TOPSIS is the rating of criteria from experts’ opinion and the rating of location. The linguistic definition of location used for rating the location is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 The linguistic definition of criteria. Criteria Linguistics Meaning Very poor The maximum of land cost is 0-170,000 Bath/wah 2. The maximum of land cost is 170,001-340,000 Poor Bath/ wah 2. The maximum of land cost is 340,001-510,000 1.Cost Fair Bath/ wah 2. The maximum of land cost is 510,001-680,000 Good Bath/ wah 2. Very good The maximum of land cost is >680,000 Bath/ wah 2. There are more than two conditions of dust 221-275 Very poor microgram/m 3, waste 281-350 ton/day, voice 81.1- 83.5 decibel and 2 times flood history. 2. National There are more than two conditions of dust 166-220 environment Poor microgram/m 3, waste 211-280 ton/day, voice 78.6- and its impact 81.0 decibel and 2 times flood history. There are more than two conditions of dust 111 - Fair 165 microgram/m 3, waste 151-210 ton/day, voice 76.1-78.5 decibel and one times flood history.

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 49

Table 4.2 The linguistic definition of criteria (cont.) Criteria Linguistics Meaning There are more than two conditions of dust 56 - 110 Good microgram/m 3, waste 75-150 ton/day, voice 73.6- 2. National 76.0 decibel and one times flood history. environment and its impact There are more than two conditions of dust 0-55 (cont.) Very good microgram/m 3, waste <75 ton/day, voice 71.0-73.5 decibel and not flood history. Very poor There is the bus only. There are the bus and one types of accessibility - the Poor underground electric train, skytrain, or piers. There are the bus and two types of accessibility - the 3.Accessibility Fair underground electric train, skytrain, piers or bus.

There are four types of accessibility - the Good underground electric train, skytrain, piers and bus. There are four types of accessibility and all types are Very good more one - the underground electric train, skytrain, piers or bus. Very poor The numbers of labor are <26,000 persons. Poor The numbers of labor are 26,001-54,000 persons. 4. Labor Fair The numbers of labor are 54,001-82,000 persons. Good The numbers of labor are 82,001-110,000 persons. Very good The numbers of labor are >110,001persons. There is no train, the expressway entrance or the Very poor expressway exit. There is one type of multimodal transport - train, the Poor 5.Connectivity expressway entrance or the expressway exit. to multimodal There are two type of multimodal transport - train, transport Fair the expressway entrance or the expressway exit. There are three type of multimodal transport - train, Good the expressway entrance or the expressway exit.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 50

Table 4.2 The linguistic definition of criteria (cont.) Criteria Linguistics Meaning There are three type of multimodal transport and 5.Connectivity to multimodal Very good all types are more one - train, the expressway transport entrance or the expressway exit. Very poor The truck cannot reach into the district all time. The 10-wheel truck cannot reach into all district at Poor 6.21 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. The 10-wheel truck cannot reach into part of 6. Government Fair district at 6.21 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. and regulations The 6-wheel truck or more cannot reach into Good district at 6.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. Very good The truck can reach into the district all time. Very poor The number of drug distribution center is 0. Poor The number of drug distribution center is 1. 7.Competition Fair The number of drug distribution center is 2. Good The number of drug distribution center is 3. Very good The number of drug distribution center is >3. Very poor The number of hospital is 0-1. Poor The number of hospital is 2-3.

8.Demand Fair The number of hospital is 4-5. Good The number of hospital is 6-7. Very good The number of hospital is >8. There are no water and electricity supply in Very poor district. Poor There are no water or electricity supply in district. 9.Infrastructure The area is in the 3rd and 4th Memorandum of Fair Understanding of Pipeline water supply emergency.

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 51

Table 4.2 The linguistic definition of criteria (cont.) Criteria Linguistics Meaning The area is in the 1st and 2nd Memorandum of Good Understanding of Pipeline water supply 9.Infrastructure emergency. (cont.) There are >95% of water and electricity supply in Very good district. The average traffic volume is >21,260 Very poor vehicles/day The average traffic volume is 21,261-42,520 Poor vehicles/day The average traffic volume is 42,521-63,780 10.Density of Fair traffic vehicles/day The average traffic volume is 63,781-85,040 Good vehicles/day The average traffic volume is 85,041-106,300 Very good vehicles/day Very poor The district occurred crime >56.0%. Poor The district occurred crime during 42.1-56.0%.

11.Security Fair The district occurred crime during 28.1-42.0%. Good The district occurred crime during 14.1-28.0%. Very good The district occurred crime during 0-14.0%. Very poor No signal of 3G internet in district. Poor The signal strength of 3G internet is poor. 12.Information Fair The signal strength of 3G internet is fair. technology Good The signal strength of 3G internet is good. Very good The signal strength of 3G internet is good all area. No a drainage tunnel or a Royally-Initiated Very poor 13.Flooded Bangkok Flood Dyke in district. management There is a drainage tunnel or a Royally-Initiated Poor Bangkok Flood Dyke in district.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 52

Table 4.2 The linguistic definition of criteria (cont.) Criteria Linguistics Meaning There are two drainage tunnels or Royally- Fair Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke in district. 13.Flooded There are three drainage tunnels or the Royally- management Good Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke in district. (cont.) There are four drainage tunnels or the Royally- Very good Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke in district. The elevation is less than 0.5 meter above mean Very poor sea level. Poor The elevation is 0.5-1 meter above mean sea level.

14.Topography Fair The elevation is 1-1.5 meter above mean sea level. Good The elevation is 1.5-2 meter above mean sea level. The elevation is over 2 meter above mean sea Very good level. The forbidden DC area in country planning is 81- Very poor 100%. The forbidden DC area in country planning is 61- Poor 80%. The forbidden DC area in country planning is 41- 15.Country Fair planning 60%. The forbidden DC area in country planning is 21- Good 40%. The forbidden DC area in country planning is 0- Very good 20%.

The number of districts from rating location of each criterion is shown in Figure 4.2. The ratings of mostly districts are fair for the natural environment, labor, and information technology criteria. But all districts rating in accessibility, connectivity to multimodal transport, flood management, cost, competition criteria are very poor. Many districts are rated poor in demand, security and topography criteria. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng. (Industrial Engineering) / 53

Only regulation criterion, many districts rating are good. Three criteria -infrastructure, country planning and density of traffic are very good for mostly rating of all districts.

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

The number districts number of The 5 0

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good

Figure 4.2 The number of districts to each criteria

The closeness coefficients are present in Appendix F. The ranking order of 50 districts from the experts’ opinion is shown in Table 4. 3. The top five ranking orders are Phasi Charoen , Chom Thong, Bang Sue, Lak Si and Bangkok Noi. However, the closeness coefficients of Phasi Charoen, Chom Thong and Bang Sue are not significantly difference. The selected location could be any district always the three districts. From the real situation happened in 2011, Phasi Charoen was flooded in all sub-district. The reason was that the major causes of the flooding problem during that time were the very heavy rainfall combined with government management on the flood way to these areas. The human managed situation is not predictable, therefore, Phasi Charoen, Chom Thong and Bang Sue was away the flood area in 2011.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 54

Table 4.3 The ranking of districts for location drug distribution center

Ranking Districts Ranking Districts 1 Phasi Charoen 26 Min Buri 2 Chom Thong 27 Chatuchak 3 Bang Sue 28 Nong Chok 4 Lak Si 29 Saphan Sung 5 Bangkok Noi 30 Bang KhoLaem 6 Bang Bon 31 Suan Luang 7 Bang Khun Thian 32 Taling Chan 8 Pathum Wan 33 Dusit 9 Phaya Thai 34 Don Mueang 10 Rat Burana 35 Thon Buri 11 Bang Na 36 BuengKum 12 Bangkok Yai 37 LatKrabang 13 Bang Rak 38 Khan Na Yao 14 Huai Khwang 39 LatPhrao 15 Khlong Toei 40 Phra Khanong 16 Nong Khaem 41 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 17 Bang Khae 42 Wang Thonglang 18 Thawi Watthana 43 Yan Nawa 19 Sathon 44 Prawet 20 Ratchathewi 45 Bang Phlat 21 Sai Mai 46 Samphanthawong 22 Bang Khen 47 Bang Kapi 23 Thung Khru 48 Din Daeng 24 Khlong Sam Wa 49 Khlong San 25 Watthana 50 Phra Nakhon

4.4 Sensitivity analysis The impact of criteria weight is testing by sensitivity analysis. For this research, the 20 experiments are used to sensitivity analysis. The weights of all criteria are equal for five experiments. These experiments use to find the location where the Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 55 importances of all criteria are equal. The other experiments are set one criterion as the highest weight and the remaining criteria as the lowest weight. The criterion which the highest weight is more than important to the other criteria. The ranking of all districts are present in Appendix G. Table 4.4 reports the top five ranking from sensitivity analysis. Phasi Charoen district is the best location in the equal weight of all criteria, highest weight of national environment and its impact criterion, highest weight of government and regulations criterion, highest weight of security criterion, highest weight of information technology criterion, highest weight of country planning criterion, highest weight of cost criterion and highest weight of competition criterion. Thus, if these criteria are important, Phasi Charoen district is chosen for drug distribution center location. However, the top five ranking orders from experts’ opinion are the same of location in high and very high weight of all criteria. In 2008, the maximum number of drug distribution centers from 50 districts is six in Huai Khwang district (Infopharma Media Services, 2008). That’s similar location in the highest weight of demand criterion. Thus, the important criterion for decision location in the past is demand criterion.

Table 4.4 The top five ranking of districts for location drug distribution center Ranking Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 All criteria are Phasi Chom Bang Sue Lak Si Bang Bon very low Charoen Thong All criteria are Phasi Chom Bang Sue Lak Si Bang Bon low Charoen Thong All criteria are Phasi Chom Bang Sue Lak Si Bang Bon medium Charoen Thong All criteria are Phasi Chom Bangkok Bang Sue Lak Si high Charoen Thong Noi All criteria are Phasi Chom Bangkok Bang Sue Lak Si very high Charoen Thong Noi Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 56

Table 4.4 The top five ranking of districts for location drug distribution center (cont.) Ranking Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 The highest weight of national Phasi Bangkok Chom Bang Rak Bang Sue environment and Charoen Yai Thong its impact The highest weight Pathum Ratchathe Bang Rak Watthana Bang Sue of accessibility Wan wi Bang The highest weight Phasi Bang Chom Khun Bang Sue of labor Charoen Khae Thong Thian The highest weight of connectivity to Pathum Phaya Suan Huai Chatuchak multimodal Wan Thai Luang Khwang transport The highest weight Phasi Chom Rat Nong of government and Lak Si Charoen Thong Burana Khaem regulations The highest weight Huai Ratchathe Phaya Bangkok Watthana of demand Khwang wi Thai Noi The highest weight Bangkok Phasi Pathum Phaya Bang Sue of infrastructure Noi Charoen Wan Thai Bang The highest weight Phasi Bangkok Nong Bang Bon Khun of security Charoen Noi Khaem Thian The highest weight Khlong Huai Chom of flooded Bang Na Phaya Thai Toei Khwang Thong management The highest weight Bang Sue Lak Si Phaya Thai Bang Rak Sathon of topography Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 57

Table 4.4 The top five ranking of districts for location drug distribution center (cont.) Ranking Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 The highest weight Phasi Chom Bangkok Bang Sue Bang Bon of country planning Charoen Thong Noi The highest weight Phasi Chom Bangkok Lak Si Bang Bon of cost Charoen Thong Noi The highest weight Phasi Chom Bang Khun Lak Si Bang Bon of competition Charoen Thong Thian The highest weight Bangkok Thawi Phasi Khlong Bang Sue of density of traffic Yai Watthana Charoen Sam Wa

Pathum Wan district is selected the best location for accessibility and highest weight of connectivity to multimodal transport criterion as significant criterion. If the labor criterion is important, Bang Khun Thian district is proper to located. In addition, this district is the fifth ranking of the highest weight of security and competition criterion cases. Bang Sue district is the best of location in case of the highest weight of infrastructure and topography, the third ranking in case of the experts’ opinion and highest weight of country planning criterion, the third ranking in case of equal weight criteria, the fourth ranking in case of the highest weight of national environment and its impact, labor and information technology criteria, and the fifth ranking in case of highest weight of accessibility and density of traffic criterion. Not only Huai Khwang district is the best location for the highest weight of demand criterion, but also the fourth ranking for the highest weight of flooded management criterion and the fifth ranking for the highest weight of connectivity to multimodal transport criterion. Khlong Toei district is proper to selected the best location for the highest weight of flooded management criterion only. Besides, Bangkok Yai district is the best location for the highest weight of density of traffic criterion and the second ranking for the highest weight of national environment and its impact criterion. However, the results of sensitivity base the weight of each criterion on the best district location. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 58

4.5 Drug distribution center location selection program The step for using this program are as follows: Step 1 : Weight the criteria The user weights the criteria into the first tab of program “Criteria weight” (Figure 4.3). The program used the abbreviations of weight which very high is VH, high is H, medium is M, low is L and very low is VL for calculation fuzzy TOPSIS. Then, click “NEXT” to weight the location.

Figure 4.3 Weight the criteria

Step 2: Weight the districts on each criteria The 50 districts were weight into 15 criteria in this step. The user weights the location into the second tab of program “Location weight” (Figure 4.4). The abbreviations of weight which very good is VG, good is G, fair is F, poor is P and very poor is VP was used for weight location. When the step of weight the location is finish, press “CALCULATION” for the result step-by-step of fuzzy TOPSIS or press “RESULT” for the ranking of the best location (Figure 4.5). Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 59

Figure 4.4 Weight the districts on each criteria 1

Figure 4.5 Weight the districts on each criteria 2

Step 3: Calculation by fuzzy TOPSIS When the weights of criteria and locations have been filled, the program will automatically calculate and illustrate the results. The result of fuzzy TOPSIS step- Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Results and discussion / 60 by-step is shown on th e page of “Calculation” (Figure 4.6). On the end of page, press “RESULT” for the ranking of the best location (Figure 4. 7).

Figure 4. 6 Calculation by fuzzy TOPSIS 1

Figure 4. 7 Calculation by fuzzy TOPSIS 2

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng. (Industrial Engineering) / 61

Step 4: The result of location

The page is shown t he closeness coefficient (CC i) and the ranking of 50 districts for establishing a drug distribution center (Figure 4. 8).

Figure 4.8 The result of location

Therefore, Phasi Charoen district is the best to establish a drug distribution center by using fuzzy TOPSIS . The best location is chosen from the value of closeness coeffic ient which is the highest. In the real situation in the flooding 2011, the propose location is Chom Thong and Bang Sue.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Conclusion / 62

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION

This research studied the possible location drug distribution centers which are still able to operate during flood crisis. The possible location for 50 districts was selected among Bangkok. The objectives of this study are to identify the essential criteria for selecting a drug distribution center location and to propose the best district in Bangkok for establishing a drug distribution center which can still operate during flood crisis. The 25 general criteria and 29 healthcare criteria were combined from literature review. These criteria are grouped into 12 criteria and 3 criteria are added from the experts. The final essential criteria for selecting a drug distribution center location include cost, natural environment and its impact, accessibility, labor, connectivity to multimodal transport, government and regulations, competition, demand, infrastructure, density of traffic, security, information technology, flooded management, topography and country planning. Then the experts were asked to rate each criteria ranging from 1(very low) to 5(very high). Data of each district location were identified and collected. Then, these districts were evaluated by fuzzy TOPSIS.

The possible location was the highest closeness coefficient (CC i). The important criteria are accessibility, cost, connectivity to multimodal transport, and flooded management. The best location from the experts’ opinion calculated by fuzzy TOPSIS is Phasi Charoen district. However, the closeness coefficients of Phasi Charoen, Chom Thong and Bang Sue are not significantly difference. The selected location could be any district always the three districts. However, when sensitivity analysis was conducted, the results of best location from each criterion are varied. Based on natural environment and its impact, government and regulations, security, information technology, cost and competition, the best is Phasi Charoen district. Based on accessibility and connectivity to multimodal transport, the best is Pathum Wan district. Based on labor, the best is Bang

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 63

Khun Thian district. Based on demand, the best is Huai Khwang. Based on infrastructure and topography, the best is Bang Sue district. Based on density of traffic, the best is Bangkok Yai district. Based on flooded management, the best is Khlong Toei. The third, the criteria weights impact to the best location are investigated by sensitivity analysis. Then, the criteria weights change, the best location is also different district. In summarize, the research methodology applied in this study can be used further to find the most suitable location for other businesses. The criteria should be identified both in general and specifically for the business and its products. The Fuzzy- TOPSIS can also be applied to search for the best location. Finally, sensitivity analysis helps to suggest the best location for different condition. Suggestion for future research includes the application of this research methodology in other business. The study of smaller areas under district and their comparisons should be connected in order to get specific area for establishing drug distribution center in the real situation. The application of other decision-making methodology can also be conducted to compare the results.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol References / 64

REFERENCES

Administrative strategy division (2012). Statistical Profile of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration 2011. Strategy and Evaluation Department, Bangkok: Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing Office. Alternative Energy and Efficiency Information Center (2011). Electric Power in Thailand 2011. Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Bangkok: Sahamit Printing and Publishing Public Company. Anagnostopoulos, K., Doukas, H., & Psarras, J. (2008). A linguistic multicriteria analysis system combining fuzzy sets theory, ideal and anti-ideal points for location site selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 35 (4), 2041- 2048. Atmaca, E., & Basar, H. B. (2012). Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using Analytic Network Process (ANP). Energy, 44 (1), 555-563 Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2011). A multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53 (1-2), 98-109. Azadeh, A., Ghaderi, S. F., & Nasrollahi, M. R. (2011). Location optimization of wind plants in Iran by an integrated hierarchical Data Envelopment Analysis. Renewable Energy, 36 (5), 1621-1631. Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (2011). A Royally-Initiated Path Towards a Heavenly Bangkok, Bangkok: Strategy and Evaluation Department . Bellman, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision-Making In A Fuzzy Environment. Management Science, 17 (4), B141 - B 164. Bennett, V. L., Eaton, D. J., & Church, R. L. (1982). Selecting sites for rural health workers. Soc Sci & Med, 16 (1), 63-72. Boufounou, P. V. (1995). Evaluating bank branch location and performance: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research, 87 , 389-402. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 65

Bu, L., Van Duin, J. H. R., Wiegmans, B., Luo, Z., & Yin, C. (2012). Selection of City Distribution Locations in Urbanized Areas. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 39 , 556-567. Bureau of Health Policy and Planning (2010). Health Resources reported 2010, Bangkok: Ministry of Public Health. Bureau of Property Valuation (2012). The Appraised Value of Land and Building Assets [Online]. Available at: www.treasury.go.th/internet/land/ bangkok/bkk_New.pdf [Accessed July 30, 2012]. Chan, L., & Daim, T. U. (2011). Multi-perspective analysis of the Chinese pharmaceutical sector: Policy, enterprise and technology. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6 (2), 171-190. Chen, C.-T. (2001). A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118 , 65-73. Cheng, Y.-H., & Tsai, Y.-L. (2009). Factors influencing shippers to use multiple country consolidation services in international distribution centers. International Journal of Production Economics, 122 (1), 78-88. Chongvilaivan, A. (2012). Managing Global Supply Chain Disruptions: Experience from Thailand’s 2011 Flooding. Paper presented at APEC Study Centers Consortium (ASCC) 2012 Conference. Chou, S.-Y., Chang, Y.-H., & Shen, C.-Y. (2008). A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal of Operational Research, 189 (1), 132-145. Chou, T.-Y., Hsu, C.-L., & Chen, M.-C. (2008). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for international tourist hotels location selection. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 (2), 293-301. Craig, A. M., & Malek, M. (1995). Market structure and conduct in the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmacol Ther, 66 (2), 301-337. Deloitte Consulting LLP. (2008). Trade/distribution strategies for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, Deloitte Development LLC. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol References / 66

Demirel, T., Demirel, N. Ç., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Multi-criteria warehouse location selection using Choquet integral. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (5), 3943-3952. Dong, H., Bogg, L., Rehnberg, C., & Diwan, V. (1999). Drug policy in China: pharmaceutical distribution in rural areas. Social Science & Medicine, 48 , 777-786. Dunlap, E., & Golub, A. (2011). Drug markets during the Katrina disaster. Disaster Prev Manag, 20 (3), 251-265. Dursun, M., & Karsak, E. E. (2010). A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (6), 4324-4330. Elke A. Pioch, & Schmidt, R. A. (2001). German retail pharmacies – regulation, professional identity and commercial differentiation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19 (6), 11. Emde, G. (2012). Flooding in Thailand’s Chao Phraya River Basin [Online]. Available at: http://grahamemde.com/pdfs/Fundamentals_ChaoPhrayaRiverBasin Flooding.pdf [Accessed May 30, 2012]. Emergency Operation Center for Flood, S. a. L. (2012). The Report of Flood, Storms and Landslide, Disaster Relief Operation Center at Energy Complex, Bangkok. Farahani, R. Z., & Asgari, N. (2007). Combination of MCDM and covering techniques in a hierarchical model for facility location: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research, 176 (3), 1839-1858. Farahani, R. Z., SteadieSeifi, M., & Asgari, N. (2010). Multiple criteria facility location problems: A survey. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34 (7), 1689-1709. Government Savings Bank (2012). List of flood victims [Online]. Available at: http://www.gsb.or.th/flood/ [Accessed May 30, 2012]. Ho, C.-T. B. (1993). Performance evaluation of Australia's major banks. Asian Review of Accounting, 12 (1), 19 - 33. Hosseini Nasab, H., & Milani, A. S. (2012). An improvement of quantitative strategic planning matrix using multiple criteria decision making and fuzzy numbers. Applied Soft Computing, 12 (8), 2246-2253. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 67

Huang, L., Yu, J., & Huang, X. (2012). Modeling Agricultural Logistics Distribution Center Location Based on ISM. Journal of Software, 7 (3). Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications , New York: Springer . Infopharma Media Services, Ltd (2008). Companies’ directory In MIMS (Thailand), Bangkok: David Bromilow. Irin. (2011). THAILAND: Hospitals fear floods will hit drug supplies [Online]. Available at: http://www.irinnews.org/report/94110/thailand-hospitals- fear-floods-will-hit-drug-supplies [Accessed August 30, 2012]. Jahanshahloo, G. R., Lotfi, F. H., & Izadikhah, M. (2006). Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 181 (2), 1544-1551. Jiang, J., et al. (2011). TOPSIS with fuzzy belief structure for group belief multiple criteria decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (8), 9400- 9406. Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., & Do ǧan, I. (2003). Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Information Sciences, 157 , 135-153. Kannan, G., Pokharel, S., & Sasi Kumar, P. (2009). A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54 (1), 28-36. Kayikci, Y. (2010). A conceptual model for intermodal freight logistics centre location decisions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (3), 6297-6311. Klir, G. J., & Yuan, B. (1995). Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic : theory and applications , New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Klir, G. J., & Folger, T. A. (1992). Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and information . Singapore : Prentice Hall. Korpela, J., & Lehmusvaara, A. (1999). A Customer Oriented Approach to Warehouse Network Evaluation and Design. International Journal of Production Economics, 59 , 135–146. Krohling, R. A., & Campanharo, V. C. (2011). Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: A case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (4), 4190-4197. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol References / 68

Kuo, M.-S. (2011). Optimal location selection for an international distribution center by using a new hybrid method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (6), 7208-7221. Lee, K.-l., & Lin, S.-c. (2008). A fuzzy quantified SWOT procedure for environmental evaluation of an international distribution center. Information Sciences, 178 (2), 531-549. Li, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2011). Selection of logistics center location using Axiomatic Fuzzy Set and TOPSIS methodology in logistics management. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (6), 7901-7908. Liang, G., & Wang, M. (1994). Personnel selection using fuzzy MCDM algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 78 , 22-33. Liangrokapart, J. (2012). Supply Chain Impact Analysis: A Case Study of Hospital Supply Chain Disruptions in Thailand. In W. Kersten, T. Blecker & C. M. Ringle (Eds.), Managing the Future Supply Chain: Current Concept and Solutions for Reliability and Robustness , (pp. 389-406). Koln: Lohmar. Liu, M., et al. (2005). A performance evaluation model based on AHP and DEA. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 22 (3), 243-251. Liu, S., Chan, F. T. S., & Chung, S. H. (2011). A study of distribution center location based on the rough sets and interactive multi-objective fuzzy decision theory. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 27 (2), 426-433. Liu, Y., & Ma, J. (2012). Analysis of Refrigeration System for Quasi-Low Temperature Warehouse. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 12 , 354-358. Marr, N. E. (1989). Physical Distribution Management in New Zealand. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 19 (5), 33-40. MCOT. (2013). Scholars state adjust stoke city planning to relieve flooding [Online]. Available at: http://www.mcot.net/site/content?id=51516b84150ba05738 000005 [Accessed July 4, 2013]. Metetrirat, C., et al. (2012). Hospitals’ Opinion for Healthcare Supply Chain Disaster Management seminar, Queen Sirikit National Convention Center , Bangkok. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 69

Mokhtarian, M. N., & Hadi-Vencheh, A. (2012). A new fuzzy TOPSIS method based on left and right scores: An application for determining an industrial zone for dairy products factory. Applied Soft Computing, 12 (8), 2496-2505. Montazer, G. A., Saremi, H. Q., & Ramezani, M. (2009). Design a new mixed expert decision aiding system using fuzzy ELECTRE III method for vendor selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (8), 10837-10847. Ocalir, E. V., Ercoskun, O. Y., & Tur, R. (2010). An integrated model of GIS and fuzzy logic (FMOTS) for location decisions of taxicab stands. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (7), 4892-4901. Ou, C.-W., & Chou, S.-Y. (2009). International distribution center selection from a foreign market perspective using a weighted fuzzy factor rating system. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (2), 1773-1782. Özcan, T., Çelebi, N., & Esnaf, Ş. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (8), 9773- 9779. Öztay şi, B., Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Performance comparison based on customer relationship management using analytic network process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (8), 9788–9798. Perçin, S. (2008). Fuzzy multi-criteria risk-benefit analysis of business process outsourcing (BPO). Information Management & Computer Security, 16 (3), 213 - 234. Phamornpol, K. (2012). Flood Mitigation and Management in Bangkok Metropolitan Area [Online]. Available at: www.unescap.org/esd/suds/.../urban-flood- management /.../Thailand.pdf [Accessed September 4, 2013]. Raksri, P. (2010). What is Supply Chain [Online]. Available at: http://www.coe. or.th/e_engineers/knc_detail.php?id=2 [Accessed April 30, 2013]. Rao, P. M. (2008). The emergence of the pharmaceutical industry in the developing world and its implications for multinational enterprise strategies. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 2 (2), 103-116. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol References / 70

Ren, Y., Xing, T., Chen, X., & Chai, X. (2011). Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation of Location Plan of City Distribution Center. Energy Procedia, 13 , 479-484. Ross, T. J. (2010). Fuzzy logic with engineering applications (3rd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences, 1 (1), 83-98. Schwartz, B. M. (1999). Map Out a Site Route. Transportation & Distribution magazine, 40 (11), 67-70. Sevkli, M. (2010). An application of the fuzzy ELECTRE method for supplier selection. International Journal of Production Research, 48 (12), 3393- 3405. Shah, N. (2004). Pharmaceutical supply chains: key issues and strategies for optimisation. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 28 (6-7), 929-941. Shiau, J.-Y., & Lee, M.-C. (2010). A warehouse management system with sequential picking for multi-container deliveries. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 58 (3), 382-392. Shyjith, K., Ilangkumaran, M., & Kumanan, S. (2008). Multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate optimum maintenance strategy in textile industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14 (4), 375 - 386. Simango, C. C. B. (1993). Strategic Locational Factors Influencing Foreign Investment. European Review, 93 (4), 12-18. Sinuany-stern, Z., et al. (1995). The Location Of A Hospital In A Rural Region : The Case Of The Negev. Locarion Science, 3 (4), 255-266. Sipahi, S., & Esen, O. (2010). A multi-criteria model for bidding evaluation: An alternative selection of the best firms for the presentation of Istanbul 2010. Management Decision, 48 (2), 296 - 313. Sorat, T. (2009). Logistics manual warehouse & distribution management, Prachoomthong Printing Group, Bangkok. Strategy and Evaluation Department (2009). Statistics Bangkok 2551, Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing, Bangkok. Strategy and Evaluation Department (2012). Statistics Bangkok 2554, Cabinet and Royal Gazette Publishing, Bangkok. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 71

Suárez-Vega, R., Santos-Peñate, D. R., & Dorta-González, P. (2012). Location models and GIS tools for retail site location. Applied Geography, 35 (1-2), 12-22. Susarla, N., & Karimi, I. A. (2011). Integrated Supply Chain Planning for Multinational Pharmaceutical Enterprises. 29 , 1075-1079. TEAM Group of Companies Co., Ltd. (2011). Flood warning [Online]. Available at: http://www.teamgroup.co.th/index.php/th/news-publications/flood.html? start=72 [Accessed June 11, 2012]. The Government Public Relations Department. (2011). Drug and Consumer Goods Imports to Prevent Possible Shortages Due to Flooding [Online]. Available at: http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=5949&a=2 [Accessed August 30, 2012]. The Nation. (2011). Flood drainage to complete in December [Online]. Available at: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Flood-drainage-to-complete- in-December-30168608.html [Accessed July 30, 2013]. Tip, K. (2010). “2020” Bangkok drown [Online]. Available at: http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=669650 [Accessed May 15, 2013]. Traffic and Transportation Department. (2011). Traffic Statistic 2011, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Banhkok Block Ltd, Bangkok. Traffic and Transportation Department (2012). Driving Safty Manual, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Prannok Witthaya Maps Center, Bangkok . Triantaphyllou, E., & Mann, S. H. (1995). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: some Challenges. International Journal Of Industrial Engineering, 2 (1), 35-44. Tsita, K. G., & Pilavachi, P. A. (2012). Evaluation of alternative fuels for the Greek road transport sector using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy, 48 , 677-686. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2003). Counterfeit Drug Task Force Report October 2003 - Background: Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Drug Distribution System [Online]. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ ucm174479.htm [Accessed November 1, 2012]. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol References / 72

Vibulpolprasert, S., Chokvivat, V., & Tantivase, S. (2002). Medicine system in Thailand. Agricultural Cooperatives of Thailand, Printing, Bangkok . Wang, Y.-J., & Lee, H.-S. (2007). Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-criteria group decision-making. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 53 (11), 1762-1772. Wang, Y. J. (2008). Applying FMCDM to evaluate financial performance of domestic airlines in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34 , 1837–1845. WorldBank. (2011). The World Bank Supports Thailand's Post-Floods Recovery Effort [Online]. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2011/12/ 13/world-bank-supports-thailands-post-floods-recovery-effort [Accessed November 13, 2012]. World Health. (2010). WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations. In WHO good distribution practices for pharmaceutical products , (pp. 235-264). Switzerland: World Health Organization. Wu, C.-R., Lin, C.-T., & Chen, H.-C. (2007). Optimal selection of location for Taiwanese hospitals to ensure a competitive advantage by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis. Building and Environment, 42 (3), 1431-1444. Wu, H.-Y., et al. (2012). Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model. Measurement, 45 (5), 856-880. Yadav, P., Stapleton, O., & Wassenhove, L. N. V. (2011). Always Cola, Rarely Essential Medicines:Comparing Medicine and Consumer Product Supply Chains in the Developing World. In INSEAD (Ed.), Faculty & Reseach Working Paper Rev. Fontainebleau, France. Yang, L. et al . (2007). Logistics distribution centers location problem and algorithm under fuzzy environment. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 208 (2), 303-315. Zanjirani Farahani, R., & Hekmatfar, M. (2009). Facility Location: Concepts, Models, Algorithms and Case Studies , Springer , New York. Zhou, L., Liu, W., & Wang, L. (2011). Static Strategic Game Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Making Problems without Weight Information. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 20 (03), 577-588. Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 73

Zimmermann, H.-J. (1995). Fuzzy set theory and advanced mathematical , Kluwer, Boston, MA. Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 74

APPENDICES

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 75

APPENDIX A

NUMBER OF HOSPITALS BY TYPE AND PROVINCE

Table A.1 The number of hospitals by type and province Source : Bureau of Health Policy and Planning (2010) Number of hospitals Other Province Ministry of Private Public Health government hospital Total hospital hospital Bangkok 5 23 95 123 Amnat Charoen 7 - - 7 Ang Thong 7 1 1 9 Buriram 22 1 2 25 Chachoengsao 10 - 2 12 Chainat 6 - 1 7 Chaiyaphum 15 - 2 17 Chanthaburi 12 - 2 14 Chiang Mai 33 9 13 55 Chiang Rai 17 1 2 20 Chonburi 13 7 11 31 Chumphon 11 3 3 17 Kalasin 14 - 1 15 Kamphaeng Phet 11 - 2 13 Kanchanaburi 15 1 4 20 Khon Kaen 26 6 3 35 Krabi 8 - 1 9 Lampang 14 2 2 18 Lamphun 7 1 2 10 Loei 17 1 2 20 Lopburi 12 2 2 16 Mae Hong Son 8 - - 8 Maha Sarakham 11 1 1 13 Mukdahan 7 1 1 9 Nakhon Nayok 4 4 - 8 Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 76

Table A.1 The number of hospitals by type and province (cont.) Number of hospitals Other Province Ministry of Private Public Health government hospital Total hospital hospital Nakhon Pathom 10 3 4 17 Nakhon Phanom 12 2 - 14 Nakhon Ratchasima 31 4 8 43 Nakhon Sawan 16 2 7 25 Nakhon Si Thammarat 20 4 4 28 Nan 14 2 - 16 Narathiwat 13 - - 13 Nong Bua Lamphu 6 1 1 8 Nong Khai 14 - 3 17 Nonthaburi 10 2 6 18 Pathum Thani 10 1 7 18 Pattani 13 2 - 15 Phang Nga 10 2 - 12 Phatthalung 10 - 2 12 Phayao 7 1 1 9 Phetchabun 11 2 3 16 Phetchaburi 8 1 3 12 Phichit 9 - 4 13 Phitsanulok 9 3 6 18 Phrae 8 - 2 10 Phra Nakhon Si 16 - 4 20 Ayuttaya Phuket 3 - 3 6 Prachinburi 7 2 1 10 Prachuap Khiri Khan 8 2 2 12 Ranong 5 - 1 6 Ratchaburi 9 1 4 14 Rayong 9 3 3 15 Roi Et 17 1 2 20 Sa Kaeo 6 3 - 9 Sakhon Nakhon 18 1 1 20 Samut Prakan 7 2 18 27 Samut Sakhon 2 2 7 11 Samut Songkhram 3 - 1 4 Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 77

Table A.1 The Number of hospitals by type and province (cont.) Number of hospitals Other Province Ministry of Private Public Health government hospital Total hospital hospital Saraburi 13 1 4 18 Satun 6 - - 6 Si Saket 19 - 1 20 Singburi 6 - 1 7 Songkhla 18 6 5 29 Sukhothai 9 1 3 13 Suphan Buri 10 - 5 15 Surat Thani 22 3 7 32 Surin 14 1 2 17 Tak 9 2 - 11 Trang 10 1 3 14 Trat 7 - 1 8 Ubon Ratchathani 24 3 3 30 Udon Thani 20 3 3 26 Uthai Thani 8 - - 8 Uttaradit 9 1 - 10 Yala 8 - 1 9 Yasothon 9 1 2 12 Total 881 136 304 1,321

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 78

APPENDIX B THE CRITERIA DATA OF 50 DISTRICTS

Table B.1 The hospitals in 50 districts Source : Bureau of Health Policy and Strategy (2010) District Government hospital Private hospital - Bangpakok 2 Hospital 1. Bang Bon - - Bangpakok 8 Hospital - Navasri Nursing Home Hospital 2. Bang Kapi - - Ramkhamhaeng Hospital - Vejthani Hospital 3. Bang Khae - Ratchaphiphat Hospital - Kasemrad Hospital Bangkae 4. Bang Khen - - Central General Hospital - Charoenkrung 5. Bang KhoLaem -Thai Eye Center Pracharak Hospital - Bangmod 2 Hospital - Bangmod 3 Hospital 6. Bang KhunThian - - Nakornthon Hospital - Praram 2 Hospital - Bangna General Hospital - Kluaynamthai 2 Nursing 7. Bang Na - Home - Manarom Hospital - Sikarin Hospital - Eye Ear Nose Throat Hospital 8. Bang Phlat - - Sang Hee Hospital - Yanhee Hospital Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 79

Table B.1 The hospitals in 50 districts (cont.)

District Government hospital Private hospital - Bangkok Christian Hospital

9. Bang Rak - Lerdsin Hospital - BNH Hospital - Mahesak Hospital - Bangpo General Hospital 10. Bang Sue - - Kasemrad Hospital Prachachuen - Chaophya Hospital 11. Bangkok Noi - Siriraj Hospital - Srivichai 1 Hospital - Thonburi Hospital 12. Bangkok Yai - - - Paolo Memorial Hospital 13. Bueng Kum - Nawamin - Srisiam Hospital - Mayo Hospital (Thailand) 14. Chatuchak - - The Senior Health Care - Vibhavadi Hospital - Bangkhunthian Health Center

15. Chom Thong - - Bangmod Hospital - Bangpakok 9 International Hospital 16. Din Daeng - - Sutthisan Hospital - Bhumibol Adulyadej 17. Don Mueang - Hospital 18. Dusit - Vajira Hospital - Bangkok Adventist Hospital - Asoke Skin Hospital - Bangkok Hospital

19. Huai Khwang - - Bangkok International Hospital - Golden Years Hospital Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 80

Table B.1 The hospitals in 50 districts (cont.) District Government hospital Private hospital - Klongtun Medical Center - Petcharavej Hospital

19. Huai Khwang - Piyavate Hospital - (cont.) - Praram 9 Hospital - Wattanosoth Cancer hospital - Nopparat Rajathanee 20. Khan Na Yao - Synphaet Hospital Hospital 21. Khlong Sam Wa - - - Somdet Chaopraya 22. Khlong San Institute of Psychiatry - - Taksin Hospital - Thailand Tobacco - Kluaynamthai Hospital 23. Khlong Toei Monopoly Hospital - Theptarin Hospital - Mongkutwattana General 24. Lak Si - Chulabhorn Hospital Hospital - Bangkok Metropolitan

25. Lat Krabang Administration - - Lat Krabang Hospital - Paolo Memorial Hospital 26. LatPhrao - Chokchai 4 - Sena Vetchakarn Hospital - Navaminthra 9 Hospital 27. Min Buri - - Navaminthra Hospital - Seriruk Hospital 28. Nong Chok - Wetchakarunrasm - - Luang Pho Taweesak 29. Nong Khaem - Srivichai 2 Hospital Hospital - King Chulalongkorn - Jetanin Institute for 30. Pathum Wan Memorial Hospital Assisted Reproduction Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 81

Table B.1 The hospitals in 50 districts (cont.) District Government hospital Private hospital - Police General Hospital 30. Pathum Wan (cont.) - Thai Red Cross Relief and Public Health Bureau - Bang Phai Hospital

31. Phasi Charoen - - Petkasem 2 Hospital - Phyathai 3 Hospital - Bangkok Cancer Center Hospital - Prasarnmit Hospital - Decha Hospital 32. Phaya Thai - Veterans General - Paolo Memorial Hospital Hospital Phaholyothin - Vichaiyut Hospital 33. Phra Khanong - - 34. Phra Nakhon - - - Hua Chiew Hospital 35. Pom Prap Sattru Phai - Klang Hospital - Angkhatha Wanit Hospital 36. Prawet - Sirindhorn Hospital - - Bangpakok 1 Hospital - Krungdhon 2 Hospital 37. Rat Burana - Nawamin 2 Hospital - RajBurana Hospital - Hospital for Tropical Diseases - Phyathai 1 Hospital - Phramongkutklao 38. Ratchathewi - Phyathai 2 Hospital Hospital - Deja General Hospital - Rajavithi Hospital - Ramathibodi Hospital - B.Care Medical Center 39. Sai Mai - - Saimai Hospital Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 82

Table B.1 The hospitals in 50 districts (cont.)

District Government hospital Private hospital - Kwongsiew Foundation Hospital 40. Samphanthawong - - Thian Fah Foundation Hospital - Kasemrad Hospital 41. Saphan Sung - Sukhapibal 3 42. Sathon - Manchakiri hospital - Saint Louis Hospital - Dr. Panya General Hospital

43. Suan Luang - - Samitivej Srinakarin Hospital - Vibharam Hospital 44. Taling Chan - - 45. Thawi Watthana - - Thonburi 2 Hospital - Krungdhon 1 Hospital - Somdejprapinklao - Ratchada-Tha Phra 46. Thon Buri Hospital Health Centre - Yaowarak Hospital 47. Thung Khru - - 48. Wang Thonglang - - Ladprao General Hospital - Bumrungrad International Hospital - Camillian Hospital

49. Watthana - - Rutnin Eye Hospital - Samitivej Sukhumvit Hospital - Sukhumvit Hospital 50. Yan Nawa - -

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 83

Table B.2 The land cost, dust, waste, voice and labor in 50 districts Source : Bureau of Property Valuation (2012), Strategy and Evaluation Department (2012) Maximum of Dust Waste Voice Labor District land cost (PM 10 ) (Ton/day) (decibel) (persons) (Bath/wah 2) 1. Bang Bon 70,000 103 186.04 76.5 71,861 2. Bang Kapi 160,000 171 284.14 74.2 101,956 3. Bang Khae 150,000 89 256.16 77.2 131,883 4. Bang Khen 150,000 172 237.12 78.8 129,123 5. Bang Kho Laem 450,000 123 124.86 77.6 66,136 6. Bang Khun Thian 90,000 119 255.11 77.0 110,871 7. Bang Na 170,000 112 190.62 80.2 66,559 8. Bang Phlat 170,000 145 142.62 74.4 68,809 9. Bang Rak 850,000 107 151.23 75.3 31,611 10. Bang Sue 220,000 274 157.48 74.3 92,598 11. Bangkok Noi 170,000 87 183.68 77.2 82,330 12. Bangkok Yai 150,000 105 87.87 78.0 50,664 13. Bueng Kum 95,000 144 152.75 76.4 100,277 14. Chatuchak 200,000 119 334.80 77.3 110,711 15. Chom Thong 130,000 142 191.96 78.0 108,816 16. Din Daeng 350,000 84 230.80 76.0 90,434 17. Don Mueang 100,000 94 160.80 79.0 114,004 18. Dusit 400,000 87 175.63 73.8 74,637 19. Huai Khwang 350,000 112 150.60 75.0 53,308 20. Khan Na Yao 95,000 147 95.04 79.0 59,790 21. Khlong Sam Wa 38,000 189 130.31 77.0 113,416 22. Khlong San 215,000 180 121.71 78.0 53,138 23. Khlong Toei 400,000 115 280.04 78.7 75,779 24. Lak Si 140,000 112 146.53 73.6 76,218 25. Lat Krabang 35,000 170 199.78 77.0 110,328 26. Lat Phrao 80,000 149 156.21 75.5 83,804 27. Min Buri 75,000 194 169.32 75.0 93,445 28. Nong Chok 24,000 156 88.22 72.0 105,884

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 84

Table B.2 The land cost, dust, waste, voice and labor in 50 districts (cont.) Maximum dust Waste Voice Labor District of land cost (PM 10 ) (Ton/day) (decibel) (persons) (Bath/wah 2) 29. Nong Khaem 150,000 101 163.78 77.6 101,718 30. Pathum Wan 800,000 92 216.93 79.0 37,722 31. Phasi Charoen 150,000 132 147.81 73.0 89,506 32. Phaya Thai 350,000 128 147.43 75.0 50,437 33. Phra Khanong 100,000 141 133.23 71.0 64,806 34. Phra Nakhon 400,000 136 190.80 72.9 40,311 35. Pom Prap Sattru Phai 500,000 101 86.74 78.1 35,731 36. Prawet 120,000 140 214.32 75.7 108,686 37. Rat Burana 110,000 124 119.09 78.3 60,251 38. Ratchathewi 400,000 250 171.97 76.3 50,002 39. Sai Mai 150,000 140 169.33 78.3 127,569 40. Samphanthawong 700,000 120 58.27 77.0 19,206 41. Saphan Sung 70,000 144 90.41 75.0 60,989 42. Sathon 600,000 123 158.04 76.2 59,135 43. Suan Luang 140,000 91 186.06 72.0 79,166 44. Taling Chan 185,000 113 114.35 77.5 73,245 45. Thawi Watthana 60,000 175 91.16 76.0 51,758 46. Thon Buri 165,000 86 162.61 77.7 83,364 47. Thung Khru 90,000 139 116.73 78.0 79,444 48. Wang Thonglang 130,000 164 195.85 77.6 78,936 49. Watthana 400,000 148 232.91 80.0 55,453 50. Yan Nawa 550,000 166 157.63 81.3 56,574

Table B.3 The station of sky electric train and the underground electric train in 50 districts Source : Strategy and Evaluation Department (2012) The station of sky electric The station of underground District train electric train 1. Bang Bon - - 2. Bang Kapi - - Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 85

Table B.3 The station of sky electric train and the underground electric train in 50 districts (cont.) The station of sky electric The station of underground District train electric train 3. Bang Khae - - 4. Bang Khen - - 5. Bang KhoLaem - - 6. Bang Khun Thian - - 7. Bang Na - - 8. Bang Phlat - - - Sala Daeng Station - Chong Nonsi Station - Sam Yan Station 9. Bang Rak - Surasak Station - Silom Station - Saphan Taksin Station 10. Bang Sue - - Bang Sue station 11. Bangkok Noi - - 12. Bangkok Yai - - 13. BuengKum - - - Kamphaeng Phet Station 14. Chatuchak - Mo Chit Station - Lat Phrao Station - Phahon Yothin Station 15. Chom Thong - - - Ratchadaphisek Station 16. Din Daeng - - Sutthisan Station 17. Don Mueang - - 18. Dusit - - - Phra Ram 9 Station 19. Huai Khwang - - Thailand Cultural Centre Station 20. Khan Na Yao - - 21. Khlong Sam Wa - -

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 86

Table B.3 The station of sky electric train and the underground electric train in 50 districts (cont.) The station of sky The station of underground District electric train electric train - Krung Thon Buri Station 22. Khlong San - - Wongwian Yai Station - Nana Station - Asok Station - Phra Khanong Station - Khlong Toei Station

23. Khlong Toei - Phrom Phong Station - Queen Sirikit National - Thong Lo Station Convention Centre Station - On Nut Station - Ekkamai Station 24. Lak Si - - 25. Lat Krabang - - 26. Lat Phrao - - 27. Min Buri - - 28. Nong Chok - - 29. Nong Khaem - - - Siam Station - Chit Lom Station - Hua Lamphong Station 30. Pathum Wan - Phloen Chit Station - Sam Yan Station - National Stadium Station - Silom Station - Ratchadamri Station 31. Phasi Charoen - - - Saphan Khwai Station 32. Phaya Thai - - Sanam Pao Station 33. Phra Nakhon - - 34. Phra Khanong - - 35. Pom Prap Sattru Phai - - 36. Prawet - - 37. Rat Burana - -

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 87

Table B.3 The station of sky electric train and the underground electric train in 50 districts (cont.) The station of sky The station of underground District electric train electric train - Ratchathewi Station - Victory Monument 38. Ratchathewi - Petchaburi Station Station - Phaya Thai Station 39. Sai Mai - - 40. Samphanthawong - - 41. Saphan Sung - - - Surasak Station 42. Sathon - - Saphan Taksin Station 43. Suan Luang - - 44. Taling Chan - - 45. Thawi Watthana - - 46. Thon Buri - - 47. Thung Khru - - 48. Wang Thonglang - - - Nana Station - Asok Station - Phra Khanong Station

49. Watthana - Phrom Phong Station - Sukhumvit Station - Thong Lo Station - On Nut Station - Ekkamai Station 50. Yan Nawa - -

Table B.4 The number of piers and the bus number in 50 districts Source : Strategy and Evaluation Department (2012), Traffic and Transportation Department (2012)

District Piers The bus number 1. Bang Bon - 43, 120, 147, 167, 171

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 88

Table B.4 The number of piers and the bus number in 50 districts (cont.) District Piers The bus number 8, 22, 36 ก, 37 ก, 40, ต43, 44, 48, 49, 80, 92, 94,

95, 95 ก, 97, 98, 99, 100, 115, 117, 123, 143, 2. Bang Kapi 9 145, 150, 152, 172, 174, 178, 206, 501, 517, 520, 530, 550 ต5, 7, 7 ก, ต77, 79, 80 ก, 91, 101, 123, 146, 147, 3. Bang Khae - 157, 165, 169, 171, 183, 509, ต13, 26, 34, 39, 42, ต55, 59, 81, 82, 95, 95 ก,

4. Bang Khen - 107, 114, 116, 126, 129, 150, 154, 185, 188, 206, 503, 520, 522, 543, 554, 5. Bang Kho Laem 2 138, 140, 141, 142 ต7, ปอ .7, 68, 71, 73, 76, 105, 140, 141, 142, 147, 6. Bang Khun Thian - 171, 172, 529, 558

2, 45, 45 ก, 46, ต63, 102, 116, 129, 142, 507, 7. Bang Na - 511, 536, 545

ปอ.พ.4, 18, 19, 28, 30, 56, 57, 66, 68, 79, 80,

8. Bang Phlat 15 108, 110, 123, 124, 127, 146, 157, 170, 174, 175, 177, 183, 203, 507, 511, 516, 542, 556

1, 15, 16, 35, 36, 45, 45 ก, 75, 76, 77, 93, 9. Bang Rak 7 115,162, 163, 164, 177, 504, 514, 547 5, 16, 30, 32, 33, 49, 50, 51, 52, 64, 65, 66, 67, 10. Bang Sue 4 70, 90, 97, 117, 505, 511, 516

7, 7 ก, 19, 40, 42, 56, 57, 68, 80, 80 ก, 81, 84, 80 ก,

11. Bangkok Noi 15 84 ก, 89, 91, 91 ก, 101, 108, 146, 147, 149, 157,

163, 164, 165, 169, 171, 175, 177, 509, 542, 547 Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 89

Table B.4 The number of piers and the bus number in 50 districts (cont.) District Piers The bus number 26, 36 ก, 60, 71, 73 ก, 95, 95 ก, 96, 115, 150, 156, 12. Bangkok Yai 11 178, 501, 520,

ต10, ต12, ต14, 15, 24, 26, 30, 34, 39, 40, 44, 46,

47, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 67, 95, 101, 107, 111,

13. BuengKum 2 114, ต118, 119, 120, 126, 129, 185, 188, 206,

503, 522, 543, ต5 50

7, 7 ก, 19, 40, 42, 56, 57, 68, 80, 80 ก, 81, 84, 80

ก, 84 ก, 89, 91, 91 ก, 101, 108, 146, 147, 149, 14. Chatuchak - 157, 163, 164, 165, 169, 171, 175, 177, 509, 542, 547 43, 68, 76, 105, 120, 140, 141, 142, 147, 167, 15. Chom Thong 1 172, 193, 529, 530, 558

16. Din Daeng - 3, ปอ.พ.4, 8, 12, 13, 24, 69, 92, 27, 28, 29, 34, ต13, 29, 34, 39, 59, 81, 82, 95, ต98, 114, 116, 17. Don Mueang - 188, 503, 504, 510, 513, 520, 522, 538

3, ปอ.พ.4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 28, 30, 32,

33, 49, 53, 56, 64, 65, 66, 70, 72, 99, 108, 110, 18. Dusit - 125, 157, 171, 183, 201, 503, 505, 509, 515, 524, 542, 539 ปอ.พ.4, 12, 13, 24, 36, 36 ก, 54, 69, 73, 73 ก, 74,

92, 98, 107, 117, 129, 136, 137, 138, 157, 168, 19. Huai Khwang 3 171, 172, 185, 204, 206, 504, 514, 517, 529, 537, 538, 555

20. Khan Na Yao - ต14, 54, 71, 115, 168

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 90

Table B.4 The number of piers and the bus number in 50 districts (cont.) District Piers The bus number 21. Khlong Sam Wa - 559 3, 4, 6, 7, 7 ก, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 37, 40, 42, 43,

22. Khlong San 3 56, 57, 76, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 105, 106, 111, 120, 149, 164, 167, 172, 173, 177, 506, 529 4, 13, 22, 45, 46, 47, 71, 72, 74, 98, 102, 107,

23. Khlong Toei 1 109, 115, 116, 136, 141, 149, 154, 173, 180, 185, 205, 507, 519, 544 13, 29, 38, 51, 52, 59, 62, 65, 89, 95, 114, 356, 24. Lak Si - 504, 510, 513, 538, 555

ต25, 26, 92, ต111, 143, 144, 151, 152, 517, 519, 25. LatKrabang - 549, 551, 554, 559, 1013 26. LatPhrao - 26, 154, 156 8, ต15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,

27. Min Buri 6 39, 58, 60, 91, 92, 93, 96, 108, 113, 131, 151, 152, 168, 173, 501, 502, 514, 519, ต549

28. Nong Chok 7 ต17, 18, 21, ต55, 57, 131, 526 29. Nong Khaem 3 7, 80, 80 ก 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, 29, 40, 45, 45

ก, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 62, 67, 73, 73 ก, 74, 75,

30. Pathum Wan 2 76, 77, 79, 85, 93, 109, 113, 141, 159, 162, 163, 164, 170, 172, 174, 177, 183, 204, 501, 504, 505, 507, 508, 511, 514, 529, 547

7, 7 ก, 80, 80 ก, 81, 84, 84 ก, 89, 91 ก, 101, 146, 31. Phasi Charoen - 147, 157, 163, 164, 165, 171, 509, 547 3, 8, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 38, 39, 44, 52, 54, 32. Phaya Thai - 59, 63, 69, 74, 77, 90, 92, 97, 104, 107, 108,117,

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 91

Table B.4 The number of piers and the bus number in 50 districts (cont.) District Piers The bus number 129, 138, 157, 204, 502, 503, 504, 509, 510, 32. Phaya Thai (cont.) - 524, 555

33. Phra Khanong - 2, 45, 45 ก, 46, 102, 129, 142, 511, 536 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 25, 30, 32, 33, 35, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 56, 59, 60, 64, 65, 68, 70, 73,

34. Phra Nakhon 15 79, 82, 91, 123, 124, 157, 169, 171, 174, 177, 183, 201, 203, 503, 507, 508, 509, 511, 516, 524, 542 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 15, 21, 25, 35, 37, 43, 44, 47,

48, 49, 53, 56, 59, 60, 70, 73, 73 ก, 79, 85, 157, 35. Pom Prap Sattru Phai 6 159, 171, 201, 204, 503, 507, 508, 509, 511, 529, 542

11 ก, 36, 46, 48, ต48, ต49, 50, 51, 92, ต109, 110, 36. Prawet - 139, 145, 180, 182, 206, 207, 517, 551, 1013 6, 17, 20, 21, 35, 37, 75, 82, 85, 138, 140, 141, 37. Rat Burana - 142, 504, 558

ปอ.พ.4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 26, 29, 34, 36, 36 ก,

38, 44, 50, 54, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 72, 73,

73 ก, 74, 77, 79, 92, 93, 98, 99, 113, 136, 139, 38. Ratchathewi 2 140, 150, 157, 159, 163, 164, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 177, 183, 185, 187, 201, 204, 206, 502, 503, 504, 505, 509, 511, 513, 514, 519, 522, 529, 536, 537, 538, 539, 542, 547, 551

ต13, 42, ต42, 34, 39, 81, 82, 114, 116, 188, 503, 39. Sai Mai - 520, 522, 559 40. Samphanthawong 8 1, 4, 7, 10, 21, 25, 29, 35, 37, 40, 46, 47, 48, 49,

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 92

Table B.4 The number of piers and the bus number in 50 districts (cont.) District Piers The bus number 40. Samphanthawong 53, 56, 73, 73 ก, 75, 85, 109, 113, 159, 204, 501, 8 (cont.) 507, 529 41. Saphan Sung - 93, 171, 172, 554, 551, 559, 1, 4, 13, 15, 17, 22, 45, 46, 47, 62, 67, 74, 75, 42. Sathon 1 77, 89, 109, 115, 116, 141, 149, 162, 163, 173, 504, 507, 544, 547

43. Suan Luang - 11 ก, 40, 92, 99, 145, 206, 517, 551, 1013 ปอ.พ.4, 19, 28, 40, 66, 89, 123, 146, 149, 165, 44. Taling Chan - 177, 388, 507, 511, 515, 516, 539, 542,

7ก, ต33, 79, 84 ก, 91 ก, 123, 124, 125, 146, 157, 45. Thawi Watthana - 163, 164, 165, 170, 183, 388, 515, 539, 547

3, 4, 7, 7 ก, 9, 10, 15, 20, 21, 37, 42, 43, 76, 80 ก,

82, 84, 84 ก, 85, 89, 91 ก, 101, 105, 108, 111, 46. Thon Buri 1 120, 147, 163, 164, 165, 167, 172, 173, 175, 193, 205, 529, 542, 547

47. Thung Khru - ต36, 75, 88 8, 26 ก, 27, 36 ก, 44, 73 ก, 92, 96, 122, 126, 137, 48. Wang Thonglang - 145, 154, 172, 178, 182, 502, 514, 545

2, 22, 23, 25, 26 ก, 38, 40, 48, 71, 72, 98, 109,

49. Watthana 3 115, 136, 154, 173, 185, 501, 508, 511, 514, 519, 545 50. Yan Nawa 1 138, 140, 141, 142

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 93

Table B.5 The number of Train station, entrance to expressway and exit to expressway in 50 districts Source : Strategy and Evaluation Department (2012), Traffic and Transportation Department (2012). Train Expressway District station Entrance N. Exit N. 1. Bang Bon 3 - - - - - Chalong Rat 2. Bang Kapi - 1 - - expressway 3. Bang Khae ------Chalong Rat - Chalong Rat 4. Bang Khen - 1 1 expressway expressway 5. Bang KhoLaem - - Si Rat expressway - Si Rat expressway 6. Bang Khun Thian 1 - - - - - Burapha Withi - Burapha Withi 7. Bang Na - 1 1 expressway expressway 8. Bang Phlat - - - - - 9. Bang Rak - - Si Rat expressway 3 - Si Rat expressway 3 10. Bang Sue - - - - - 11. Bangkok Noi 2 - - - - 12. Bangkok Yai - - - - - 13. BuengKum - - - - - 14. Chatuchak 4 -Si Rat expressway 2 - Si Rat expressway 2 15. Chom Thong 4 - - - - 16. Din Daeng - - - - - 17. Don Mueang 3 - Si Rat expressway 1 - Si Rat expressway 1 18. Dusit 3 - - - - - Si Rat expressway - Si Rat expressway 19. Huai Khwang 1 - Chalong Rat 2 - Chalong Rat 2 expressway expressway 20. Khan Na Yao - - - - - 21. Khlong Sam Wa - - - - - 22. Khlong San ------Chalong Rat - Chalong Rat 23. Khlong Toei - 1 1 expressway expressway 24. Lak Si 2 - - - - 25. LatKrabang 4 - - - - - Chalong Rat 26. LatPhrao - - - 1 expressway 27. Min Buri - - - - - 28. Nong Chok - - - - - Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 94

Table B.5 The number of Train station, entrance to expressway and exit to expressway in 50 districts (cont.) Train Expressway District station Entrance N. Exit N. 29. Nong Khaem - - - - - 30. Pathum Wan 1 - Si Rat expressway 1 - Si Rat expressway 1 31. Phasi Charoen - - - - - 32. Phaya Thai 2 - Si Rat expressway 1 - Si Rat expressway 1 - Chalong Rat - Chalong Rat 33. Phra Khanong - 1 - expressway expressway 34. Phra Nakhon - - - - - 35. Pom Prap Sattru - - - - - Phai 36. Prawet - - - - - 37. Rat Burana - - - - - 38. Ratchathewi 4 - Si Rat expressway 1 - Si Rat expressway 1 39. Sai Mai - - - - - 40. Samphanthawong - - - - - 41. Saphan Sung - - - - - 42. Sathon - - Si Rat expressway 2 - Si Rat expressway 2 - Chalong Rat - Chalong Rat 43. Suan Luang 2 2 2 expressway expressway 44. Taling Chan 2 - - - - 45. Thawi Watthana 2 - - - - 46. Thon Buri 2 - - - - 47. Thung Khru ------Chalong Rat - Chalong Rat 48. Wang Thonglang - 2 2 expressway expressway - Chalong Rat 49. Watthana - 1 - - expressway 50. Yan Nawa - - Si Rat expressway 1 - Si Rat expressway 1

Table B.6 The drug distributor in 50 districts Source : Infopharma Media Services (2008), Traffic and Transportation Department (2011). Traffic volume District Drug distributor (vehicles/day) 1. Bang Bon - 35,348

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 95

Table B.6 The drug distributor in 50 districts (cont.) Traffic volume District Drug distributor (vehicles/day) - IDS Marketing (Thailand) Ltd. - Medifive Pharma Co., Ltd. 2. Bang Kapi 81,873 - S.T. Pharma. - US Summit Corporation (Overseas). 3. Bang Khae - 29,752 4. Bang Khen - 86,650 5. Bang KhoLaem - 39,442 6. Bang KhunThian - 55,093 7. Bang Na - Stada Asiatic Co., Ltd. 43,878 - Far East Pharmaceutical Ltd., Part. 8. Bang Phlat - Greater Pharma Ltd., Part. 65,508 - Oui Heng Import Co., Ltd. 9. Bang Rak - Pharma Square Co., Ltd. 92,656 10. Bang Sue - Masu Co., Ltd. 40,114 - Kaspa Pharmaceutical (Thailand) Co., Ltd. 11. Bangkok Noi 24,934 - Neopharm Co., Ltd. - Union Medical (Thailand) Co., Ltd. 12. Bangkok Yai - 18,727 13. BuengKum - 69,375 - Siam Medicare Co., Ltd. 14. Chatuchak - Siam Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. 96,254 - T.C. Pharma-Chem Co., Ltd. 15. Chom Thong - 39,228 - Pharma Square Co., Ltd. 16. Din Daeng 69,059 - Star Lab Co., Ltd. 17. Don Mueang - 67,785 18. Dusit - 50,508 - Dabur Pharma (Thailand) Co., Ltd. 19. Huai Khwang - Harn Thai Pharma Ltd. 53,896 - Indochina Healthcare Ltd.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 96

Table B.6 The drug distributor in 50 districts (cont.) Traffic volume District Drug distributor (vehicles/day) - Medline Co., Ltd. 19. Huai Khwang - Medochemie Ltd. 53,896 (cont.) - Tri Medical Co., Ltd. 20. Khan Na Yao - 66,789 21. Khlong Sam Wa - 8,498 - B L Hua & Co., Ltd . 22. Khlong San 46,662 - SPS Medical Co., Ltd. - BJC Healthcare Co., Ltd. - Bristol-Myers Squibb (Thailand) Ltd. 23. Khlong Toei 57,448 - Cosma Medical Co., Ltd. - Zuellig Pharma Ltd. 24. Lak Si - 37,890 - Berlin Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd. 25. LatKrabang 34,485 - Thai Meji Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. - Unison Laboratories Co., Ltd. 26. LatPhrao - 47,220 27. Min Buri - 33,399 28. Nong Chok - 27,500 29. Nong Khaem - 24,568 30. Pathum Wan - B L H Trading Co., Ltd. 39,886 31. Phasi Charoen - 41,940 32. Phaya Thai - Medicine Supply Co., Ltd. 92,656 - Biogenetech Co., Ltd. - Olic (Thailand) Ltd. 33. Phra Khanong 63,307 - T P Drug Lab (1969) Co., Ltd. - Vana Corporation Ltd. - Mayoly Spindler Laboratories. 34. Phra Nakhon 52,071 (S. Charoen Bhaesaj Trading Co., Ltd.) 35. Pom Prap Sattru - Far East Pharmaceutical Ltd., Part. 34,972 Phai

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 97

Table B.6 The drug distributor in 50 districts (cont.) Traffic volume District Drug distributor (vehicles/day) - Pharmadica Co., Ltd. 36. Prawet 28,866 - Pharmaland (1982) Co., Ltd. 37. Rat Burana - 24,898 38. Ratchathewi - Bangkok Drug Co., Ltd. 80,436 39. Sai Mai - 22,493 40. Samphanthawong - DKSH (Thailand) Limited. 21,740 41. Saphan Sung - 28,866 42. Sathon - 42,578 43. Suan Luang - 55,601 44. Taling Chan - Nupharma & Healthcare Co., Ltd. 12,624 45. Thawi Watthana - 9,440 46. Thon Buri - Charoon Bhaesaj Ltd. 55,932 47. Thung Khru - 31,090 - Pro Task Co., Ltd. 48. Wang Thonglang 61,612 - Schumit 1967 Co., Ltd. 49. Watthana - Biopharm Chemicals Co., Ltd. 54,887 - Natural Media Co., Ltd. - Pacific Healthcare (Thailand) Co., 50. Yan Nawa 89,323 Ltd. - Wellchem Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Table B.7 The drainage tunnel and the Royally-Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke in 50 districts Source : Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (2011). The Royally-Initiated District Drainage tunnel Bangkok Flood Dyke 1. Bang Bon - - - Eastern Bangkok Flood 2. Bang Kapi - Dyke - Western Bangkok Flood 3. Bang Khae - Dyke

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 98

Table B.7 The drainage tunnel and the Royally-Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke in 50 districts (cont.) The Royally-Initiated District Drainage tunnel Bangkok Flood Dyke - Drainage tunnel at Bang - Eastern Bangkok Flood 4. Bang Khen Khen Canal (future) Dyke 5. Bang KhoLaem - - - Western Bangkok Flood 6. Bang KhunThian - Dyke - Drainage tunnel from - Eastern Bangkok Flood 7. Bang Na Nong Bon Pond to the Chao Dyke Phraya River (future) 8. Bang Phlat - - 9. Bang Rak - - - Drainage tunnel at Bang 10. Bang Sue - Khen Canal (future) 11. Bangkok Noi - - 12. Bangkok Yai - - - Eastern Bangkok Flood 13. BuengKum - Dyke - Drainage tunnel at Bang 14. Chatuchak - Khen Canal (future) - Western Bangkok Flood 15. Chom Thong Dyke - Drainage tunnel beneath 16. Din Daeng - Bang Sue Canal (future) 17. Don Mueang - - - Drainage tunnel at Prem Prachakon Canal 18. Dusit - - Drainage tunnel beneath Bang Sue Canal (future) - Rama IX-Ramkhamhaeng 19. Huai Khwang - drainage tunnel

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 99

Table B.7 The drainage tunnel and the Royally-Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke in 50 districts (cont.) The Royally-Initiated District Drainage tunnel Bangkok Flood Dyke 19. Huai Khwang - Drainage tunnel beneath - (cont.) Bang Sue Canal (future) - Eastern Bangkok Flood 20. Khan Na Yao - Dyke - Eastern Bangkok Flood 21. Khlong Sam Wa - Dyke 22. Khlong San - - - Drainage tunnel at Soi Sukhumvit 26 - Drainage tunnel at Soi 23. Khlong Toei - Sukhumvit 36 - Drainage tunnel at Soi Sukhumvit 42 24. Lak Si - - 25. LatKrabang - - 26. LatPhrao - - 27. Min Buri - - 28. Nong Chok - - 29. Nong Khaem - - 30. Pathum Wan - - - Drainage tunnel from 31. Phasi Charoen Makkasan Pond to the Chao - Phraya River - Drainage system at Phaya Thai District 32. Phaya Thai - - Drainage tunnel beneath Bang Sue Canal (future)

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 100

34. Phra Nakhon - - 35. Pom Prap Sattru - - Phai - Drainage tunnel from - Eastern Bangkok Flood 36. Prawet Nong Bon Pond to the Chao Dyke Phraya River (future) 37. Rat Burana - -

- Drainage tunnel from

38. Ratchathewi Makkasan Pond to the Chao - Phraya River

- Eastern Bangkok Flood 39. Sai Mai - Dyke 40. Samphanthawong - - 41. Saphan Sung - - - Drainage tunnel from 42. Sathon Makkasan Pond to the Chao

Phraya River 43. Suan Luang - - - Western Bangkok Flood 44. Taling Chan - Dyke 45. Thawi Watthana - - 46. Thon Buri - - - Western Bangkok Flood 47. Thung Khru - Dyke Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 101

Table B.7 The drainage tunnel and the Royally-Initiated Bangkok Flood Dyke in 50 districts (cont.) The Royally-Initiated District Drainage tunnel Bangkok Flood Dyke 48. Wang Thonglang - - - Rama IX-Ramkhamhaeng 49. Watthana - drainage tunnel 50. Yan Nawa - -

Table B.8 The elevation above mean sea level and flood history in 50 districts Source : Government Savings Bank (2012), TEAM Group of Companies Co., Ltd (2011) Elevation above Flood District mean sea level (m.) 2011 1995 1. Bang Bon 1 – 1.5 x - 2. Bang Kapi 0 – 0.5 - - 3. Bang Khae 0.5 - 1 x - 4. Bang Khen 1.5 - 2 x - 5. Bang KhoLaem 2.5 – 3 x x 6. Bang KhunThian 1 – 1.5 - - 7. Bang Na 0 – 0.5 - - 8. Bang Phlat 0 – 0.5 x x 9. Bang Rak 2.5 – 3 - x 10. Bang Sue 2.5 – 3 x - 11. Bangkok Noi 0.5 – 1 x x 12. Bangkok Yai 0.5 – 1 - - 13. BuengKum 0.5 – 1 - - 14. Chatuchak 0.5 – 1 x x 15. Chom Thong 0.5 – 1 - - 16. Din Daeng 1 – 1.5 - x 17. Don Mueang 0.5 – 1 x - Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 102

Table B.8 The elevation above mean sea level and flood history in 50 districts

(cont.) Elevation above Flood District mean sea level (m.) 2011 1995 18. Dusit 0.5 – 1 x x 19. HuaiKhwang 0 – 0.5 - - 20. Khan Na Yao 1 – 1.5 x - 21. Khlong Sam Wa less than 0 x - 22. Khlong San 0.5 – 1 x x 23. Khlong Toei 2.5 – 3 x x 24. Lak Si 2.5 – 3 x - 25. LatKrabang 0 – 0.5 x - 26. LatPhrao 1 – 1.5 x - 27. Min Buri 0.5 – 1 x - 28. NongChok 0.5 – 1 x - 29. NongKhaem 0 – 0.5 x - 30. Pathum Wan 0.5 – 1 - - 31. Phasi Charoen 0.5 – 1 x - 32. Phaya Thai 2.5 – 3 - x 33. PhraKhanong 0 – 0.5 - x 34. PhraNakhon 0 – 0.5 x x 35. PomPrapSattruPhai 0.5 – 1 - x 36. Prawet 0 – 0.5 - - 37. Rat Burana 1.5 – 2 x x 38. Ratchathewi 0.5 – 1 - - 39. Sai Mai 2 – 2.5 x - 40. Samphanthawong 0.5 – 1 x x 41. Saphan Sung 0.5 – 1 - - 42. Sathon 2.5 – 3 x x 43. SuanLuang 0 – 0.5 - x 44. Taling Chan 0.5 – 1 x -

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 103

Table B.8 The elevation above mean sea level and flood history in 50 districts

(cont.) Elevation above Flood District mean sea level (m.) 2011 1995 45. ThawiWatthana 1 – 1.5 x - 46. Thon Buri 0.5 – 1 x - 47. ThungKhru 2 – 2.5 - - 48. Wang Thonglang 1.5 - 2 x - 49. Watthana 0 – 0.5 - x 50. Yan Nawa 2.5 - 3 x -

Note: [x] = That district had been flood.

Table B.9 The measures to prohibit truck traffic Source : Tonglim (2012). Route/Area Measure ment All trucks with 10 wheels or more are prohibited at 06.00 to Inner Bangkok (radius 21.00. Except contained concrete, cranes or allowed have 113 Square kilometers) permission at 10.00-15.00.

The 6 wheels trucks are banned at 06.00-09.00 and 16.00 to The expressway 20.00. All trucks with 10 wheels or more are banned at 05.00-09.00 and 15.00 to 21.00.

All trucks with 6 wheels or more are prohibited at 06.00 to the west Ring Road 21.00. Suksawat-Rama 2 All trucks with 6 wheels or more are prohibited at 06.00 to Road 21.00.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 104

Table B.10 The crime in 50 districts Source : Katikan and Ua-Amnoey (2007). Districts %Crime Bang Kapi, Bang Khen, Bang Sue, BuengKum, Chatuchak, Chom Thong, Don Mueang, Khan Na Yao, Khlong San, Lak Si, LatPhrao, 46.4 Prawet, Rat Burana, Sai Mai, Saphan Sung, Suan Luang, Thon Buri, Thung Khru, Wang Thonglang

Bang KhoLaem, Bang Na, Bang Rak, Din Daeng, Dusit, Huai Khwang, Khlong Toei, Pathum Wan, Phaya Thai, Phra Khanong, 29.3 Phra Nakhon, Pom Prap Sattru Phai, Ratchathewi, Samphanthawong, Sathon, Watthana, Yan Nawa

Bang Bon, Bang Khae, Bang Khun Thian, Bang Phlat, Bangkok Noi, Bangkok Yai, Khlong Sam Wa, LatKrabang, Min Buri, Nong 21.1 Chok, Nong Khaem, Phasi Charoen, Taling Chan, Thawi Watthana

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 105

Figure B.1 The country planning of Bangkok

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 106

APPENDIX C THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF LOCATION FOR ESTABLISHING DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER (ENGLISH).

The questionnaire of criteria analysis for establishing drug distribution center

All respondents respectfully , This questionnaire is a part of selection location for a drug distribution center research that can be carried out during the flood. The researcher is Miss Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol, Graduate student of Mahidol University Salaya Campus. Please, answer the questionnaire. The information will be use for study.

Objective : The questionnaire is conducted to analysis the factors to select an appropriate location distribution center. Able to meet the needs of customers and safety patient during the flood.

Explanation : There are two section. section 1 ask the appropriate criteria to consider for establishing drug distribution center. section 2 for more suggestions.

Thank you for your participant answering my questionnaire.

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 107

General information Name: ...... Organization: ...... Position: ...... Experience in healthcare industry......

Section 1 The criteria is considered the location drug distribution center (please √ into the level of each criteria) The level of importance 5 = Very high, 4 = high, 3 = Medium, 2 = Low, 1 = very low and 0 = not available

Criteria 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. Costs in acquiring land, capital, vehicle resources, drivers, resource, logistics, services and taxes etc. for the location. 2. The condition of weather, geological, hydrological,

topography (e.g. rain, sunshine, humidity etc.). 3. Access by public and private transport modes to the

location. 4. Sufficient the number of labors. 5. Capability to appropriate and response time service. 6. Connectivity of the location with multiple modes of

transport, e.g. highways, seaport, railways etc. 7. Ability to conform to sustainable freight regulations imposed by municipal administrations for e.g. restricted delivery hours, special delivery zones. 8. Capability to compete against others or the number of

competitor . 9. The number of customers purchases the products, and whether the needs of the market can be adequately fulfilled . 10. The distance and time from location to customers. 11. The condition of economy (e.g. currency value,

exchange rate, market demand etc.). 12. Availability of raw materials resources in the

location. 13. The availability and convenience to access the water

and electricity supply infrastructure.

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 108

Criteria 5 4 3 2 1 0 14. Capability to manage continues the growing

demand. 15. The frequency of use traffic is from the location to

the suppliers or customers . 16. Impact of location on the environment, for example,

air pollution, noise. 17. Good legal rules and regulations to support

business. 18. The distance and time from location to suppliers . 19. The security from crime, accident etc. 20. The period of time from purchase order until the

customers receive drug. 21. The feature of product (e.g. size, type, preservation

temperature etc.). 22. The technology for sending and receiving information) 23. Firm strategy and structure 24. Governmental policy towards establishing drug distribution center includes the regulations of the established standard . 25. Focus outreach efforts near drug markets 26. The density and structure of the population. 27. The flood management in Bangkok 28. The mean sea level of area 29. The permit DC area in country planning 30. Others (please identify)...... 31. Others (please identify)...... 32. Others (please identify)...... 33. Others (please identify)...... 34. Others (please identify)...... 35. Others (please identify)......

Section 2 Recommend and suggestion

Thank you for taking the time to answer the question.

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 109

APPENDIX D THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF LOCATION FOR ESTABLISHING DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER (THAI).

แบบสอบถามสํารวจปัจจัยทีใช้ตังศูนย์กระจายยา

กราบเรียน ผู้ตอบแบบสอบถามทุกท่าน

แบบสอบถามฉบับนีเป็นส่วนหนึงในงานวิจัยการเลือกทีตังศูนย์กระจายยาทีสามารถ ดําเนินการได้ในระหว่างเกิดอุทกภัยของ น.ส.ธัมมาเมตตา ตรีวิโรจน์มงคล นักศึกษาปริญญาโท

มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล จึงใคร่ขอความกรุณาในการตอบแบบสอบถามค่ะ โดยข้อมูลทีได้ใช้ในการวิจัย

เท่านันค่ะ

วัตถุประสงค์ : แบบสอบถามนีจัดทําเพือสํารวจความคิดเห็นถึงปัจจัยในการเลือกทีตังศูนย์กระจายยาที

เหมาะสม สามารถตอบสนองต่อความต้องการของลูกค้าและความปลอดภัยของผู้ป่วยระหว่างเกิด

อุทกภัยได้ค่ะ

คําชีแจง : แบบสอบถามนีมี 2 ตอนค่ะ

ตอนที 1 สอบถามปัจจัยทีใช้ในการพิจารณาจัดตังศูนย์กระจายยา

ตอนที 2 ข้อเสนอแนะเพิมเติม

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 110

ข้อมูลทัวไปของผู้ตอบแบบสอบถาม ชือนามสกุล ผู้ตอบแบบสอบถาม......

หน่วยงาน...... ตําแหน่ง......

ประสบการณ์ในการทํางานด้านนี......

ตอนที 1 ปัจจัยทีใช้ในการตัดสินใจเลือกทีตังศูนย์กระจายยา (โปรดทําเครืองหมาย √ ในช่องทีตรงกบระดับั

ความสําคัญของปัจจัยทีใช้ในการตัดสินใจ)

ระดับความสําคัญ 5 = มากทีสุด 4 = มาก 3 = ปานกลาง 2 = น้อย 1 = น้อยทีสุด และ 0 = ไม่ใช้

ปัจจัย 5 4 3 2 1 0 1.ค่าใช้จ่ายในการจัดตัง, การดําเนินการ, การขนส่ง, การบํารุงรักษา (Cost) 2. สภาพแวดล้อม เช่น ภูมิอากาศ ภูมิศาสตร์ เป็นต้น (Natural environment ) 3. ความสะดวกในการขนส่งทางสาธารณะและส่วนบุคคล (Accessibility) 4.จํานวนแรงงาน (Labor ) 5.คุณภาพด้านเวลาและความเหมาะสมในการให้บริการ (Quality of service) 6. การเชือมต่อการขนส่งได้หลายทาง เช่น รถ , เรือ, เครืองบิน, รถไฟ ฯลฯ

(Connectivity to multimodal transport) 7. การปฏิบัติตามกฎระเบียบเรืองการขนส่ง (Conformance to sustainable

freight regulations) 8.ความสามารถในการแข่งขัน/จํานวนคู่แข่ง (Competition ) 9.จํานวนลูกค้าและความต้องการของตลาด(Demand ) 10.ระยะทางใกล้กบทีตัั งของลูกค้า (Proximity to customers) 11. สภาพเศรษฐกิจ เช่น ความต้องการทางตลาด , อัตราแลกเปลียนฯลฯ

(Economic criteria) 12.ความง่ายในการจัดหาวัตถุดิบ (Resource availability) 13. โครงสร้างพืนฐานทีสําคัญ เช่น นํา, ไฟฟ้า เป็นต้น (Infrastructure) 14.การขยายกิจการเพือรองรับการเติบโตในอนาคต (Possibility of expansion) 15.สภาพความหนาแน่นทางจราจร (Density of traffic) 16. ผลกระทบต่อสิงแวดล้อม เช่น กลิน , เสียง, ขยะ ฯลฯ (Environmental

impact)

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 111

ปัจจัย 5 4 3 2 1 0 17. กฎหมายสนับสนุน (Political regulations) 18. ระยะทางใกล้กบทีตัั งของซัพพลายเออร์ (Proximity to suppliers) 19. ความปลอดภัยจากอาชญากรรม, ขโมยและอุบัติเหตุ (Security) 20. ระยะเวลาทีใช้ตังแต่ออกใบสังซือจนกระทังลูกค้าได้รับยา (Lead time) 21. ลักษณะของยา เช่น ขนาด , ชนิด, อุณหภูมิทีใช้จัดเก็บ (Product feature) 22. เทคโนโลยีทีใช้ในการรับส่งข้อมูล ( Information technology) 23.กลยุทธ์หรือนโยบายของบริษัทในการจัดตังและการจัดการ (Firm

strategy and structure) 24. กฎระเบียบของรัฐในการจัดตังศูนย์กระจายยา เช่น GMP เป็นต้น

(Government ) 25. ประสิทธิภาพในการกระจายยาได้ปริมาณใกล้เคียงกบความต้องการของั

ตลาดอยางต่ ่อเนือง (Focus outreach efforts near drug markets) 26.ความต้องการยาในตลาดรวมถึง จํานวนประชากร, จํานวนโรงพยาบาล,

ความหนาแน่นของประชากร และโครงสร้างของประชากร (Population) 27. การบริหารจัดการนําของกรุงเทพฯ เช่น ตําแหน่งคันกันนํา (Flood management) 28.ระดับพืนทีสูงตําจากระดับนํา (Topography) 29.การจัดวางผังเมืองของกรุงเทพฯ (Country planning) 30.อืนๆ (โปรดระบุ)...... 31.อืนๆ (โปรดระบุ)...... 32.อืนๆ (โปรดระบุ)...... 33.อืนๆ (โปรดระบุ)...... 34.อืนๆ (โปรดระบุ)...... 35.อืนๆ (โปรดระบุ)......

ตอนที 2ข้อคิดเห็นและข้อเสนอแนะเพิมเติม

ขอกราบขอบพระคุณทุกท่านทีสละเวลาในการตอบแบบสอบถามค่ะ

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 112

APPENDIX E THE INFORMATION OF EXPERTS

Table E.1 The list of experts

No. Organization Position Experience 1. DKSH (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Business Process 12 years Reengineering Manager 2. National Healthcare Systems Co ., Logistic Manager Over 5 years Ltd .( N Health)

3. Boonthavorn Ceramics Co., Ltd. Manager 18 years

4. Thai Pharmaceutical President 5 years Manufacturers Association 5. DKSH (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Senior Logistics-Medical Over 13 Device Distribution Center years 6. Thai Logistics And Production Consultant Over 20 Society years 7. Siriraj Hospital Head of Drug and Medical 10 years Supplies Information Management

8. Bangkok Metropolitan Experienced Level 4 years Administration

9. Bangkok Metropolitan Experienced Level 3 years Administration

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 113

APPENDIX F THE EVALUATION OF LOCATION FROM EXPERTS’ OPINION

TABLE F.1 Aggregate fuzzy weights for criteria

Experts Criteria D1 D2 D3 D4 1.National environment and its M 3 5 7 M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 impact 2.Accessibility VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 3.Labor M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 L 1 3 5 VH 7 9 9 4.Connectivity to VH 7 9 9 M 3 5 7 VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 multimodal transport 5.Government and H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 regulations 6.Demand M 3 5 7 VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 7.Infrastructure H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 8.Security M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 9.Information L 1 3 5 H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 technology 10.Flooded H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 management 11.Topography H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 12.Country planning H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 13.Cost VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 14.Competition M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 15.Density of traffic H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 114

TABLE F.1 Aggregate fuzzy weights for criteria (cont.)

Experts Criteria D5 D6 D7 D8 1.National

environment and its M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 L 1 3 5 impact

2.Accessibility VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 3.Labor VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 L 1 3 5 M 3 5 7 4.Connectivity to H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 multimodal transport 5.Government and H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 M 3 5 7 M 3 5 7 regulations

6.Demand H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 7.Infrastructure M 3 5 7 VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 8.Security M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 M 3 5 7 L 1 3 5 9.Information H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 technology 10.Flooded H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 management

11.Topography M 3 5 7 VH 7 9 9 H 5 7 9 H 5 7 9 12.Country planning M 3 5 7 VH 7 9 9 L 1 3 5 M 3 5 7 13.Cost VH 7 9 9 VH 7 9 9 M 3 5 7 M 3 5 7 14.Competition M 3 5 7 H 5 7 9 L 1 3 5 L 1 3 5 15.Density of traffic H 5 7 9 VH 7 9 9 M 3 5 7 VH 7 9 9

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 115

TABLE F.1 Aggregate fuzzy weights for criteria (cont.)

Experts Criteria Aggregate fuzzy weights D9 1.National

environment and its H 5 7 9 1 5.89 9 impact

2.Accessibility M 3 5 7 3 8.11 9 3.Labor H 5 7 9 1 6.11 9 4.Connectivity to H 5 7 9 3 7.44 9 multimodal transport 5.Government and M 3 5 7 3 6.56 9 regulations

6.Demand M 3 5 7 3 6.78 9 7.Infrastructure H 5 7 9 3 6.78 9 8.Security M 3 5 7 1 5.67 9 9.Information H 5 7 9 1 7 9 technology 10.Flooded H 5 7 9 5 7.67 9 management

11.Topography H 5 7 9 3 7.22 9 12.Country planning H 5 7 9 1 6.56 9 13.Cost M 3 5 7 3 7.44 9 14.Competition M 3 5 7 1 5.22 9 15.Density of traffic H 5 7 9 3 7 9

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 116

TABLE F.2 National environment and its impact criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon F 3 5 7 LatPhrao F 3 5 7 Bang Kapi P 1 3 5 Min Buri F 3 5 7 Bang Khae F 3 5 7 Nong Chok G 5 7 9 Bang Khen P 1 3 5 Nong Khaem F 3 5 7 Bang KhoLaem F 3 5 7 Pathum Wan F 3 5 7 Bang Khun Thian F 3 5 7 Phasi Charoen G 5 7 9 Bang Na F 3 5 7 Phaya Thai F 3 5 7 Bang Phlat F 3 5 7 Phra Khanong G 5 7 9 Bang Rak G 5 7 9 Phra Nakhon G 5 7 9 Bang Sue F 3 5 7 Pom Prap Sattru Phai G 5 7 9 Bangkok Noi F 3 5 7 Prawet F 3 5 7 Bangkok Yai G 5 7 9 Rat Burana F 3 5 7 BuengKum F 3 5 7 Ratchathewi P 1 3 5 Chatuchak P 1 3 5 Sai Mai F 3 5 7 Chom Thong F 3 5 7 Samphanthawong G 5 7 9 Din Daeng F 3 5 7 Saphan Sung G 5 7 9 Don Mueang F 3 5 7 Sathon F 3 5 7 Dusit G 5 7 9 Suan Luang G 5 7 9 Huai Khwang F 3 5 7 Taling Chan F 3 5 7 Khan Na Yao F 3 5 7 Thawi Watthana F 3 5 7 Khlong Sam Wa F 3 5 7 Thon Buri F 3 5 7 Khlong San F 3 5 7 Thung Khru F 3 5 7 Khlong Toei P 1 3 5 Wang Thonglang F 3 5 7 Lak Si F 3 5 7 Watthana P 1 3 5 LatKrabang F 3 5 7 Yan Nawa P 1 3 5

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 117

TABLE F.3 Accessibility criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon VP 1 1 3 LatPhrao VP 1 1 3 Bang Kapi P 1 3 5 Min Buri P 1 3 5 Bang Khae VP 1 1 3 Nong Chok VP 1 1 3 Bang Khen VP 1 1 3 Nong Khaem VP 1 1 3 Bang KhoLaem P 1 3 5 Pathum Wan VG 7 9 9 Bang Khun Thian VP 1 1 3 Phasi Charoen VP 1 1 3 Bang Na VP 1 1 3 Phaya Thai P 1 3 5 Bang Phlat P 1 3 5 Phra Khanong VP 1 1 3 Bang Rak VG 7 9 9 Phra Nakhon P 1 3 5 Bang Sue F 3 5 7 Pom Prap Sattru Phai P 1 3 5 Bangkok Noi P 1 3 5 Prawet VP 1 1 3 Bangkok Yai P 1 3 5 Rat Burana VP 1 1 3 BuengKum P 1 3 5 Ratchathewi VG 7 9 9 Chatuchak F 3 5 7 Sai Mai VP 1 1 3 Chom Thong P 1 3 5 Samphanthawong P 1 3 5 Din Daeng P 1 3 5 Saphan Sung VP 1 1 3 Don Mueang VP 1 1 3 Sathon F 3 5 7 Dusit VP 1 1 3 Suan Luang VP 1 1 3 Huai Khwang F 3 5 7 Taling Chan VP 1 1 3 Khan Na Yao VP 1 1 3 Thawi Watthana VP 1 1 3 Khlong Sam Wa VP 1 1 3 Thon Buri P 1 3 5 Khlong San F 3 5 7 Thung Khru VP 1 1 3 Khlong Toei G 5 7 9 Wang Thonglang VP 1 1 3 Lak Si VP 1 1 3 Watthana VG 7 9 9 LatKrabang VP 1 1 3 Yan Nawa P 1 3 5

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 118

TABLE F.4 Labor criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon F 3 5 7 LatPhrao G 5 7 9 Bang Kapi G 5 7 9 Min Buri G 5 7 9 Bang Khae VG 7 9 9 Nong Chok G 5 7 9 Bang Khen VG 7 9 9 Nong Khaem G 5 7 9 Bang KhoLaem F 3 5 7 Pathum Wan P 1 3 5 Bang Khun Thian VG 7 9 9 Phasi Charoen G 5 7 9 Bang Na F 3 5 7 Phaya Thai P 1 3 5 Bang Phlat F 3 5 7 Phra Khanong F 3 5 7 Bang Rak P 1 3 5 Phra Nakhon P 1 3 5 Bang Sue G 5 7 9 Pom Prap Sattru Phai P 1 3 5 Bangkok Noi G 5 7 9 Prawet G 5 7 9 Bangkok Yai P 1 3 5 Rat Burana F 3 5 7 BuengKum G 5 7 9 Ratchathewi P 1 3 5 Chatuchak VG 7 9 9 Sai Mai VG 7 9 9 Chom Thong G 5 7 9 Samphanthawong VP 1 1 3 Din Daeng G 5 7 9 Saphan Sung F 3 5 7 Don Mueang VG 7 9 9 Sathon F 3 5 7 Dusit F 3 5 7 Suan Luang F 3 5 7 Huai Khwang P 1 3 5 Taling Chan F 3 5 7 Khan Na Yao F 3 5 7 Thawi Watthana P 1 3 5 Khlong Sam Wa VG 7 9 9 Thon Buri G 5 7 9 Khlong San P 1 3 5 Thung Khru F 3 5 7 Khlong Toei F 3 5 7 Wang Thonglang F 3 5 7 Lak Si F 3 5 7 Watthana F 3 5 7 LatKrabang VG 7 9 9 Yan Nawa F 3 5 7

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 119

TABLE F.5 Connectivity to multimodal transport criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon P 1 3 5 LatPhrao P 1 3 5 Bang Kapi P 1 3 5 Min Buri VP 1 1 3 Bang Khae VP 1 1 3 Nong Chok VP 1 1 3 Bang Khen F 3 5 7 Nong Khaem VP 1 1 3 Bang KhoLaem VP 1 1 3 Pathum Wan G 5 7 9 Bang Khun Thian P 1 3 5 Phasi Charoen VP 1 1 3 Bang Na F 3 5 7 Phaya Thai G 5 7 9 Bang Phlat VP 1 1 3 Phra Khanong F 3 5 7 Bang Rak F 3 5 7 Phra Nakhon VP 1 1 3 Bang Sue VP 1 1 3 Pom Prap Sattru Phai VP 1 1 3 Bangkok Noi P 1 3 5 Prawet VP 1 1 3 Bangkok Yai VP 1 1 3 Rat Burana VP 1 1 3 BuengKum VP 1 1 3 Ratchathewi G 5 7 9 Chatuchak VG 7 9 9 Sai Mai VP 1 1 3 Chom Thong P 1 3 5 Samphanthawong VP 1 1 3 Din Daeng VP 1 1 3 Saphan Sung VP 1 1 3 Don Mueang G 5 7 9 Sathon F 3 5 7 Dusit P 1 3 5 Suan Luang VG 7 9 9 Huai Khwang G 5 7 9 Taling Chan P 1 3 5 Khan Na Yao VP 1 1 3 Thawi Watthana P 1 3 5 Khlong Sam Wa VP 1 1 3 Thon Buri P 1 3 5 Khlong San VP 1 1 3 Thung Khru VP 1 1 3 Khlong Toei F 3 5 7 Wang Thonglang F 3 5 7 Lak Si P 1 3 5 Watthana P 1 3 5 LatKrabang P 1 3 5 Yan Nawa F 3 5 7

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 120

TABLE F.6 Government and regulations criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon G 5 7 9 LatPhrao G 5 7 9 Bang Kapi G 5 7 9 Min Buri VG 7 9 9 Bang Khae G 5 7 9 Nong Chok VG 7 9 9 Bang Khen G 5 7 9 Nong Khaem VG 7 9 9 Bang KhoLaem P 1 3 5 Pathum Wan P 1 3 5 Bang Khun Thian G 5 7 9 Phasi Charoen VG 7 9 9 Bang Na G 5 7 9 Phaya Thai P 1 3 5 Bang Phlat F 3 5 7 Phra Khanong G 5 7 9 Bang Rak P 1 3 5 Phra Nakhon P 1 3 5 Bang Sue F 3 5 7 Pom Prap Sattru Phai P 1 3 5 Bangkok Noi F 3 5 7 Prawet VG 7 9 9 Bangkok Yai F 3 5 7 Rat Burana VG 7 9 9 BuengKum G 5 7 9 Ratchathewi P 1 3 5 Chatuchak F 3 5 7 Sai Mai VG 7 9 9 Chom Thong VG 7 9 9 Samphanthawong P 1 3 5 Din Daeng P 1 3 5 Saphan Sung VG 7 9 9 Don Mueang G 5 7 9 Sathon P 1 3 5 Dusit P 1 3 5 Suan Luang G 5 7 9 Huai Khwang P 1 3 5 Taling Chan G 5 7 9 Khan Na Yao VG 7 9 9 Thawi Watthana G 5 7 9 Khlong Sam Wa VG 7 9 9 Thon Buri F 3 5 7 Khlong San P 1 3 5 Thung Khru G 5 7 9 Khlong Toei F 3 5 7 Wang Thonglang G 5 7 9 Lak Si VG 7 9 9 Watthana F 3 5 7 LatKrabang VG 7 9 9 Yan Nawa P 1 3 5

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 121

TABLE F.7 Demand criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon P 1 3 5 LatPhrao P 1 3 5 Bang Kapi P 1 3 5 Min Buri VP 1 1 3 Bang Khae P 1 3 5 Nong Chok P 1 3 5 Bang Khen VP 1 1 3 Nong Khaem F 3 5 7 Bang KhoLaem P 1 3 5 Pathum Wan P 1 3 5 Bang Khun Thian F 3 5 7 Phasi Charoen G 5 7 9 Bang Na F 3 5 7 Phaya Thai G 5 7 9 Bang Phlat P 1 3 5 Phra Khanong VP 1 1 3 Bang Rak F 3 5 7 Phra Nakhon P 1 3 5 Bang Sue P 1 3 5 Pom Prap Sattru Phai VP 1 1 3 Bangkok Noi F 3 5 7 Prawet F 3 5 7 Bangkok Yai VP 1 1 3 Rat Burana F 3 5 7 BuengKum P 1 3 5 Ratchathewi G 5 7 9 Chatuchak P 1 3 5 Sai Mai P 1 3 5 Chom Thong P 1 3 5 Samphanthawong P 1 3 5 Din Daeng VP 1 1 3 Saphan Sung VP 1 1 3 Don Mueang VP 1 1 3 Sathon P 1 3 5 Dusit P 1 3 5 Suan Luang P 1 3 5 Huai Khwang VG 7 9 9 Taling Chan VP 1 1 3 Khan Na Yao P 1 3 5 Thawi Watthana VP 1 1 3 Khlong Sam Wa VP 1 1 3 Thon Buri F 3 5 7 Khlong San P 1 3 5 Thung Khru VP 1 1 3 Khlong Toei P 1 3 5 Wang Thonglang VP 1 1 3 Lak Si P 1 3 5 Watthana G 5 7 9 LatKrabang P 1 3 5 Yan Nawa VP 1 1 3

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 122

TABLE F.8 Infrastructure criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon F 3 5 7 LatPhrao G 5 7 9 Bang Kapi G 5 7 9 Min Buri F 3 5 7 Bang Khae G 5 7 9 Nong Chok F 3 5 7 Bang Khen G 5 7 9 Nong Khaem F 3 5 7 Bang KhoLaem G 5 7 9 Pathum Wan VG 7 9 9 Bang Khun Thian F 3 5 7 Phasi Charoen G 5 7 9 Bang Na G 5 7 9 Phaya Thai VG 7 9 9 Bang Phlat G 5 7 9 Phra Khanong G 5 7 9 Bang Rak VG 7 9 9 Phra Nakhon VG 7 9 9 Bang Sue VG 7 9 9 Pom Prap Sattru Phai VG 7 9 9 Bangkok Noi VG 7 9 9 Prawet F 3 5 7 Bangkok Yai VG 7 9 9 Rat Burana F 3 5 7 BuengKum G 5 7 9 Ratchathewi VG 7 9 9 Chatuchak G 5 7 9 Sai Mai F 3 5 7 Chom Thong G 5 7 9 Samphanthawong VG 7 9 9 Din Daeng VG 7 9 9 Saphan Sung F 3 5 7 Don Mueang G 5 7 9 Sathon VG 7 9 9 Dusit VG 7 9 9 Suan Luang F 3 5 7 Huai Khwang VG 7 9 9 Taling Chan F 3 5 7 Khan Na Yao F 3 5 7 Thawi Watthana F 3 5 7 Khlong Sam Wa F 3 5 7 Thon Buri VG 7 9 9 Khlong San F 3 5 7 Thung Khru F 3 5 7 Khlong Toei VG 7 9 9 Wang Thonglang G 5 7 9 Lak Si VG 7 9 9 Watthana VG 7 9 9 LatKrabang G 5 7 9 Yan Nawa VG 7 9 9

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 123

TABLE F.9 Security criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon G 5 7 9 LatPhrao P 1 3 5 Bang Kapi P 1 3 5 Min Buri G 5 7 9 Bang Khae G 5 7 9 Nong Chok G 5 7 9 Bang Khen P 1 3 5 Nong Khaem G 5 7 9 Bang KhoLaem F 3 5 7 Pathum Wan F 3 5 7 Bang Khun Thian G 5 7 9 Phasi Charoen G 5 7 9 Bang Na F 3 5 7 Phaya Thai F 3 5 7 Bang Phlat G 5 7 9 Phra Khanong F 3 5 7 Bang Rak F 3 5 7 Phra Nakhon F 3 5 7 Bang Sue P 1 3 5 Pom Prap Sattru Phai F 3 5 7 Bangkok Noi G 5 7 9 Prawet P 1 3 5 Bangkok Yai G 5 7 9 Rat Burana P 1 3 5 BuengKum P 1 3 5 Ratchathewi F 3 5 7 Chatuchak P 1 3 5 Sai Mai P 1 3 5 Chom Thong P 1 3 5 Samphanthawong F 3 5 7 Din Daeng F 3 5 7 Saphan Sung P 1 3 5 Don Mueang P 1 3 5 Sathon F 3 5 7 Dusit F 3 5 7 Suan Luang P 1 3 5 Huai Khwang F 3 5 7 Taling Chan G 5 7 9 Khan Na Yao P 1 3 5 Thawi Watthana G 5 7 9 Khlong Sam Wa G 5 7 9 Thon Buri P 1 3 5 Khlong San P 1 3 5 Thung Khru P 1 3 5 Khlong Toei F 3 5 7 Wang Thonglang P 1 3 5 Lak Si P 1 3 5 Watthana F 3 5 7 LatKrabang G 5 7 9 Yan Nawa F 3 5 7

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 124

TABLE F.10 Information technology criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon F 3 5 7 LatPhrao F 3 5 7 Bang Kapi F 3 5 7 Min Buri P 1 3 5 Bang Khae F 3 5 7 Nong Chok F 3 5 7 Bang Khen F 3 5 7 Nong Khaem F 3 5 7 Bang KhoLaem F 3 5 7 Pathum Wan F 3 5 7 Bang Khun Thian P 1 3 5 Phasi Charoen G 5 7 9 Bang Na F 3 5 7 Phaya Thai F 3 5 7 Bang Phlat F 3 5 7 Phra Khanong F 3 5 7 Bang Rak G 5 7 9 Phra Nakhon G 5 7 9 Bang Sue F 3 5 7 Pom Prap Sattru Phai G 5 7 9 Bangkok Noi G 5 7 9 Prawet F 3 5 7 Bangkok Yai F 3 5 7 Rat Burana F 3 5 7 BuengKum F 3 5 7 Ratchathewi F 3 5 7 Chatuchak G 5 7 9 Sai Mai F 3 5 7 Chom Thong F 3 5 7 Samphanthawong F 3 5 7 Din Daeng F 3 5 7 Saphan Sung F 3 5 7 Don Mueang F 3 5 7 Sathon F 3 5 7 Dusit G 5 7 9 Suan Luang F 3 5 7 Huai Khwang F 3 5 7 Taling Chan G 5 7 9 Khan Na Yao F 3 5 7 Thawi Watthana F 3 5 7 Khlong Sam Wa F 3 5 7 Thon Buri G 5 7 9 Khlong San F 3 5 7 Thung Khru F 3 5 7 Khlong Toei F 3 5 7 Wang Thonglang F 3 5 7 Lak Si F 3 5 7 Watthana F 3 5 7 LatKrabang G 5 7 9 Yan Nawa F 3 5 7

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 125

TABLE F.11 Flooded management criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon VP 1 1 3 LatPhrao VP 1 1 3 Bang Kapi P 1 3 5 Min Buri VP 1 1 3 Bang Khae P 1 3 5 Nong Chok VP 1 1 3 Bang Khen F 3 5 7 Nong Khaem P 1 3 5 Bang KhoLaem VP 1 1 3 Pathum Wan P 1 3 5 Bang Khun Thian P 1 3 5 Phasi Charoen VP 1 1 3 Bang Na F 3 5 7 Phaya Thai F 3 5 7 Bang Phlat VP 1 1 3 Phra Khanong P 1 3 5 Bang Rak VP 1 1 3 Phra Nakhon VP 1 1 3 Bang Sue P 1 3 5 Pom Prap Sattru Phai VP 1 1 3 Bangkok Noi VP 1 1 3 Prawet F 3 5 7 Bangkok Yai VP 1 1 3 Rat Burana VP 1 1 3 BuengKum P 1 3 5 Ratchathewi P 1 3 5 Chatuchak P 1 3 5 Sai Mai P 1 3 5 Chom Thong P 1 3 5 Samphanthawong VP 1 1 3 Din Daeng P 1 3 5 Saphan Sung VP 1 1 3 Don Mueang VP 1 1 3 Sathon P 1 3 5 Dusit F 3 5 7 Suan Luang VP 1 1 3 Huai Khwang F 3 5 7 Taling Chan P 1 3 5 Khan Na Yao P 1 3 5 Thawi Watthana VP 1 1 3 Khlong Sam Wa P 1 3 5 Thon Buri VP 1 1 3 Khlong San VP 1 1 3 Thung Khru P 1 3 5 Khlong Toei G 5 7 9 Wang Thonglang VP 1 1 3 Lak Si VP 1 1 3 Watthana P 1 3 5 LatKrabang VP 1 1 3 Yan Nawa VP 1 1 3

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 126

TABLE F.12 Topography criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon F 3 5 7 LatPhrao F 3 5 7 Bang Kapi VP 1 1 3 Min Buri P 1 3 5 Bang Khae P 1 3 5 Nong Chok P 1 3 5 Bang Khen G 5 7 9 Nong Khaem VP 1 1 3 Bang KhoLaem VG 7 9 9 Pathum Wan P 1 3 5 Bang Khun Thian F 3 5 7 Phasi Charoen P 1 3 5 Bang Na VP 1 1 3 Phaya Thai VG 7 9 9 Bang Phlat VP 1 1 3 Phra Khanong VP 1 1 3 Bang Rak VG 7 9 9 Phra Nakhon VP 1 1 3 Bang Sue VG 7 9 9 Pom Prap Sattru Phai P 1 3 5 Bangkok Noi P 1 3 5 Prawet VP 1 1 3 Bangkok Yai P 1 3 5 Rat Burana G 5 7 9 BuengKum P 1 3 5 Ratchathewi P 1 3 5 Chatuchak P 1 3 5 Sai Mai VG 7 9 9 Chom Thong P 1 3 5 Samphanthawong P 1 3 5 Din Daeng F 3 5 7 Saphan Sung P 1 3 5 Don Mueang P 1 3 5 Sathon VG 7 9 9 Dusit P 1 3 5 Suan Luang VP 1 1 3 Huai Khwang VP 1 1 3 Taling Chan P 1 3 5 Khan Na Yao F 3 5 7 Thawi Watthana F 3 5 7 Khlong Sam Wa VP 1 1 3 Thon Buri P 1 3 5 Khlong San P 1 3 5 Thung Khru VG 7 9 9 Khlong Toei VG 7 9 9 Wang Thonglang G 5 7 9 Lak Si VG 7 9 9 Watthana VP 1 1 3 LatKrabang VP 1 1 3 Yan Nawa VG 7 9 9

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 127

TABLE F.13 Country planning criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon VG 7 9 9 LatPhrao VP 1 1 3 Bang Kapi F 3 5 7 Min Buri P 1 3 5 Bang Khae P 1 3 5 Nong Chok P 1 3 5 Bang Khen P 1 3 5 Nong Khaem G 5 7 9 Bang KhoLaem VG 7 9 9 Pathum Wan VG 7 9 9 Bang Khun Thian G 5 7 9 Phasi Charoen VG 7 9 9 Bang Na VG 7 9 9 Phaya Thai VG 7 9 9 Bang Phlat VG 7 9 9 Phra Khanong VG 7 9 9 Bang Rak VG 7 9 9 Phra Nakhon P 1 3 5 Bang Sue VG 7 9 9 Pom Prap Sattru Phai VG 7 9 9 Bangkok Noi VG 7 9 9 Prawet P 1 3 5 Bangkok Yai VG 7 9 9 Rat Burana VG 7 9 9 BuengKum P 1 3 5 Ratchathewi VG 7 9 9 Chatuchak VG 7 9 9 Sai Mai VP 1 1 3 Chom Thong VG 7 9 9 Samphanthawong VG 7 9 9 Din Daeng VG 7 9 9 Saphan Sung VG 7 9 9 Don Mueang P 1 3 5 Sathon VG 7 9 9 Dusit G 5 7 9 Suan Luang F 3 5 7 Huai Khwang VG 7 9 9 Taling Chan VP 1 1 3 Khan Na Yao F 3 5 7 Thawi Watthana G 5 7 9 Khlong Sam Wa P 1 3 5 Thon Buri VP 1 1 3 Khlong San VG 7 9 9 Thung Khru F 3 5 7 Khlong Toei VG 7 9 9 Wang Thonglang F 3 5 7 Lak Si G 5 7 9 Watthana VG 7 9 9 LatKrabang P 1 3 5 Yan Nawa VG 7 9 9

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 128

TABLE F.14 Cost criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon VP 1 1 3 LatPhrao VP 1 1 3 Bang Kapi VP 1 1 3 Min Buri VP 1 1 3 Bang Khae VP 1 1 3 Nong Chok VP 1 1 3 Bang Khen VP 1 1 3 Nong Khaem VP 1 1 3 Bang KhoLaem F 3 5 7 Pathum Wan VG 7 9 9 Bang Khun Thian VP 1 1 3 Phasi Charoen VP 1 1 3 Bang Na VP 1 1 3 Phaya Thai F 3 5 7 Bang Phlat VP 1 1 3 Phra Khanong VP 1 1 3 Bang Rak VG 7 9 9 Phra Nakhon F 3 5 7 Bang Sue P 1 3 5 Pom Prap Sattru Phai F 3 5 7 Bangkok Noi VP 1 1 3 Prawet VP 1 1 3 Bangkok Yai VP 1 1 3 Rat Burana VP 1 1 3 BuengKum VP 1 1 3 Ratchathewi F 3 5 7 Chatuchak P 1 3 5 Sai Mai VP 1 1 3 Chom Thong VP 1 1 3 Samphanthawong VG 7 9 9 Din Daeng F 3 5 7 Saphan Sung VP 1 1 3 Don Mueang VP 1 1 3 Sathon G 5 7 9 Dusit F 3 5 7 Suan Luang VP 1 1 3 Huai Khwang F 3 5 7 Taling Chan P 1 3 5 Khan Na Yao VP 1 1 3 Thawi Watthana VP 1 1 3 Khlong Sam Wa VP 1 1 3 Thon Buri VP 1 1 3 Khlong San P 1 3 5 Thung Khru VP 1 1 3 Khlong Toei F 3 5 7 Wang Thonglang VP 1 1 3 Lak Si VP 1 1 3 Watthana F 3 5 7 LatKrabang VP 1 1 3 Yan Nawa G 5 7 9

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 129

TABLE F.15 Competition criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon VP 1 1 3 LatPhrao VP 1 1 3 Bang Kapi VG 7 9 9 Min Buri VP 1 1 3 Bang Khae VP 1 1 3 Nong Chok VP 1 1 3 Bang Khen VP 1 1 3 Nong Khaem VP 1 1 3 Bang KhoLaem VP 1 1 3 Pathum Wan P 1 3 5 Bang Khun Thian VP 1 1 3 Phasi Charoen VP 1 1 3 Bang Na P 1 3 5 Phaya Thai P 1 3 5 Bang Phlat G 5 7 9 Phra Khanong VG 7 9 9 Bang Rak P 1 3 5 Phra Nakhon P 1 3 5 Bang Sue P 1 3 5 Pom Prap Sattru Phai P 1 3 5 Bangkok Noi G 5 7 9 Prawet F 3 5 7 Bangkok Yai VP 1 1 3 Rat Burana VP 1 1 3 BuengKum VP 1 1 3 Ratchathewi P 1 3 5 Chatuchak G 5 7 9 Sai Mai VP 1 1 3 Chom Thong VP 1 1 3 Samphanthawong P 1 3 5 Din Daeng F 3 5 7 Saphan Sung VP 1 1 3 Don Mueang VP 1 1 3 Sathon VP 1 1 3 Dusit VP 1 1 3 Suan Luang VP 1 1 3 Huai Khwang VP 1 1 3 Taling Chan P 1 3 5 Khan Na Yao VP 1 1 3 Thawi Watthana VP 1 1 3 Khlong Sam Wa VP 1 1 3 Thon Buri P 1 3 5 Khlong San F 3 5 7 Thung Khru VP 1 1 3 Khlong Toei VG 7 9 9 Wang Thonglang F 3 5 7 Lak Si VP 1 1 3 Watthana P 1 3 5 LatKrabang G 5 7 9 Yan Nawa VP 1 1 3

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 130

TABLE F.16 Density of trafic criteria weights for alternatives

Alternatives Weight Alternatives Weight Bang Bon P 1 3 5 LatPhrao F 3 5 7 Bang Kapi G 5 7 9 Min Buri P 1 3 5 Bang Khae P 1 3 5 Nong Chok P 1 3 5 Bang Khen VG 7 9 9 Nong Khaem P 1 3 5 Bang KhoLaem P 1 3 5 Pathum Wan P 1 3 5 Bang Khun Thian F 3 5 7 Phasi Charoen P 1 3 5 Bang Na F 3 5 7 Phaya Thai VG 7 9 9 Bang Phlat G 5 7 9 Phra Khanong F 3 5 7 Bang Rak VG 7 9 9 Phra Nakhon F 3 5 7 Bang Sue P 1 3 5 Pom Prap Sattru Phai P 1 3 5 Bangkok Noi P 1 3 5 Prawet P 1 3 5 Bangkok Yai VP 1 1 3 Rat Burana P 1 3 5 BuengKum G 5 7 9 Ratchathewi G 5 7 9 Chatuchak VG 7 9 9 Sai Mai P 1 3 5 Chom Thong P 1 3 5 Samphanthawong P 1 3 5 Din Daeng G 5 7 9 Saphan Sung P 1 3 5 Don Mueang G 5 7 9 Sathon F 3 5 7 Dusit F 3 5 7 Suan Luang F 3 5 7 Huai Khwang F 3 5 7 Taling Chan VP 1 1 3 Khan Na Yao G 5 7 9 Thawi Watthana VP 1 1 3 Khlong Sam Wa VP 1 1 3 Thon Buri F 3 5 7 Khlong San F 3 5 7 Thung Khru P 1 3 5 Khlong Toei F 3 5 7 Wang Thonglang F 3 5 7 Lak Si P 1 3 5 Watthana F 3 5 7 LatKrabang P 1 3 5 Yan Nawa VG 7 9 9

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 131

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives

Normalized ratings Criteria a¯ j c*j Bang Bon Bang Kapi Bang Khae Bang Khen 1. National

environment 1 9 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 and its impact

2.Accessibility 1 9 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 3.Labor 1 9 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 1 9 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 transport 5.Government 1 9 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 and regulations

6.Demand 1 9 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 7.Infrastructure 3 9 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 8.Security 1 9 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 9.Information 1 9 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 1 9 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 management

11.Topography 1 9 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 12.Country 1 9 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 planning

13.Cost 1 9 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 14.Competition 1 9 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 15.Density of 1 9 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.14 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 132

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Bang Khun Bang KhoLaem Bang Na Bang Phlat Thian 1. National

environment and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 3.Labor 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 4.Connectivity to

multimodal 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 transport 5. Government and 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 7.Infrastructure 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 8.Security 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 management

11.Topography 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 12.Country 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 planning

13.Cost 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 14.Competition 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.14 0.20 15.Density of 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.11 0.14 0.20 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 133

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Bang Rak Bang Sue Bangkok Noi Bangkok Yai 1. National

environment and 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 3.Labor 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 transport 5. Government and 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 7.Infrastructure 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 8.Security 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 9.Information 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 management

11.Topography 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 12.Country 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 planning

13.Cost 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 14.Competition 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 15.Density of 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 134

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria BuengKum Chatuchak Chom Thong Din Daeng 1.National

environment and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 3.Labor 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 transport 5. Government and 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 7.Infrastructure 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 8.Security 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 management

11.Topography 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 12.Country 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 14.Competition 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 15.Density of 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.14 0.20 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 135

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Don Mueang Dusit Huai Khwang Khan Na Yao 1.National

environment and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 3.Labor 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 transport 5. Government and 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 7.Infrastructure 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 8.Security 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 management

11.Topography 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 12.Country 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 14.Competition 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 15.Density of 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.11 0.14 0.20 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 136

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Khlong Sam Khlong San Khlong Toei Lak Si Wa 1.National

environment and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 3.Labor 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 4.Connectivity to

multimodal 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 transport 5. Government and 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 7.Infrastructure 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 8.Security 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 management

11.Topography 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 12.Country 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 14.Competition 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.33 1.00 1.00 15.Density of 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.33 1.00 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 137

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria LatKrabang LatPhrao Min Buri Nong Chok 1.National

environment and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 3.Labor 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 transport 5. Government and 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 7.Infrastructure 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 8.Security 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 9.Information 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 management

11.Topography 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 12.Country 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 14.Competition 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 15.Density of 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 138

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Nong Khaem Pathum Wan Phasi Charoen Phaya Thai 1.National

environment and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 3.Labor 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 transport 5. Government and 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 7.Infrastructure 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 8.Security 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 management

11.Topography 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 12.Country 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 14.Competition 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 15.Density of 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.14 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 139

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Pom Prap Phra Khanong Phra Nakhon Prawet Sattru Phai 1.National

environment and 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 3.Labor 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 4.Connectivity to

multimodal 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 transport 5. Government and 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 7.Infrastructure 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 8.Security 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 management

11.Topography 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 12.Country 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 14.Competition 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 15.Density of 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 140

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Rat Burana Ratchathewi Sai Mai Samphanthawong 1.National environment and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 3.Labor 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 transport 5.Government 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 and regulations

6.Demand 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 7.Infrastructure 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 8.Security 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 management

11.Topography 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 12.Country 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.78 1.00 1.00 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.14 14.Competition 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 15.Density of 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 141

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Saphan Sung Sathon Suan Luang Taling Chan 1.National

environment and 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 3.Labor 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 transport 5. Government and 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 7.Infrastructure 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 8.Security 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 management

11.Topography 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 12.Country 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 14.Competition 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 15.Density of 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 142

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Thawi Wang Thon Buri Thung Khru Watthana Thonglang 1.National

environment and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 3.Labor 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 4.Connectivity to

multimodal 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 transport 5. Government and 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 7.Infrastructure 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 8.Security 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 management

11.Topography 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.78 1.00 12.Country 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 planning

13.Cost 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 14.Competition 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 15.Density of 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 143

TABLE F.17 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Normalized ratings Criteria Watthana Yan Nawa 1.National

environment and 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.33 0.56 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.33 0.56 3.Labor 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.78 transport 5. Government and 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.11 0.33 0.56 regulations

6.Demand 0.56 0.78 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.33 7.Infrastructure 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 8.Security 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 9.Information 0.33 0.56 0.78 0.33 0.56 0.78 technology 10.Flooded 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.11 0.33 management

11.Topography 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.78 1.00 1.00 12.Country 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 planning

13.Cost 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.11 0.14 0.20 14.Competition 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 15.Density of 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.14 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 144

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS

Normalized alternatives Criteria Bang Bon Bang Kapi Bang Khae Bang Khen 1.National

environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.11 1.96 5.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.11 1.96 5.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 3.Labor 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.78 6.11 9.00 0.78 6.11 9.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.33 2.48 5.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 1.00 4.14 7.00 transport 5. Government and 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 7.Infrastructure 1.00 3.77 7.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 8.Security 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 1.67 4.26 7.00 management

11.Topography 1.00 4.01 7.00 0.33 0.80 3.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 1.67 5.62 9.00 12.Country 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.33 3.64 7.00 0.11 2.19 5.00 0.11 2.19 5.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.11 0.58 1.29 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 15.Density of 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.33 1.00 1.80 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.33 0.78 1.29 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 145

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Bang Khun Bang KhoLaem Bang Na Bang Phlat Thian 1.National

environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 2.70 5.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 3.Labor 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.78 6.11 9.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 4.Connectivity to

multimodal 0.33 0.83 3.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 1.00 4.14 7.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 transport 5. Government and 0.33 2.19 5.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.00 3.64 7.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 2.26 5.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 7.Infrastructure 1.67 5.27 9.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 8.Security 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.11 2.33 5.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 1.67 4.26 7.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 management

11.Topography 2.33 7.22 9.00 1.00 4.01 7.00 0.33 0.80 3.00 0.33 0.80 3.00 12.Country 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.56 5.10 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 planning

13.Cost 0.43 1.49 3.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.11 0.75 1.80 15.Density of 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.33 1.00 1.80 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 146

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Bang Rak Bang Sue Bangkok Noi Bangkok Yai 1.National

environment and 0.56 4.58 9.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.56 4.58 9.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 2.33 8.11 9.00 1.00 4.51 7.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 3.Labor 0.11 2.04 5.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.11 2.04 5.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 1.00 4.14 7.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 transport 5. Government and 0.33 2.19 5.00 1.00 3.64 7.00 1.00 3.64 7.00 1.00 3.64 7.00 regulations

6.Demand 1.00 3.77 7.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 7.Infrastructure 2.33 6.78 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 8.Security 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 9.Information 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 management

11.Topography 2.33 7.22 9.00 2.33 7.22 9.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 12.Country 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 planning

13.Cost 0.33 0.83 1.29 0.60 2.48 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 14.Competition 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.11 0.75 1.80 0.33 5.22 9.00 15.Density of 0.33 0.78 1.29 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 1.00 7.00 9.00 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 147

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria BuengKum Chatuchak Chom Thong Din Daeng 1.National

environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.11 1.96 5.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 2.70 5.00 1.00 4.51 7.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 3.Labor 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.78 6.11 9.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.33 0.83 3.00 2.33 7.44 9.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 transport 5. Government and 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.00 3.64 7.00 2.33 6.56 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 7.Infrastructure 1.67 5.27 9.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 8.Security 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 management

11.Topography 0.33 2.41 5.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 1.00 4.01 7.00 12.Country 0.11 2.19 5.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.60 2.48 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.43 1.49 3.00 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.11 0.75 1.80 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.14 1.04 3.00 15.Density of 0.33 1.00 1.80 0.33 0.78 1.29 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.33 1.00 1.80 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 148

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Don Mueang Dusit Huai Khwang Khan Na Yao 1.National

environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.56 4.58 9.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 1.00 4.51 7.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 3.Labor 0.78 6.11 9.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.11 2.04 5.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 1.67 5.79 9.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 1.67 5.79 9.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 transport 5. Government and 1.67 5.10 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 2.33 6.56 9.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 0.75 3.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 7.Infrastructure 1.67 5.27 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 8.Security 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 0.85 3.00 1.67 4.26 7.00 1.67 4.26 7.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 management

11.Topography 0.33 2.41 5.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 0.33 0.80 3.00 1.00 4.01 7.00 12.Country 0.11 2.19 5.00 0.56 5.10 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.33 3.64 7.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.43 1.49 3.00 0.43 1.49 3.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 15.Density of 0.33 1.00 1.80 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.33 1.00 1.80 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 149

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Khlong Sam Khlong San Khlong Toei Lak Si Wa 1.National

environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.11 1.96 5.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 1.00 4.51 7.00 1.67 6.31 9.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 3.Labor 0.78 6.11 9.00 0.11 2.04 5.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 4.Connectivity to

multimodal 0.33 0.83 3.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 1.00 4.14 7.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 transport 5. Government and 2.33 6.56 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 1.00 3.64 7.00 2.33 6.56 9.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 0.75 3.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 7.Infrastructure 1.00 3.77 7.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 8.Security 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 2.78 5.96 9.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 management

11.Topography 0.33 0.80 3.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 2.33 7.22 9.00 2.33 7.22 9.00 12.Country 0.11 2.19 5.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.56 5.10 9.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.60 2.48 9.00 0.43 1.49 3.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.14 1.04 3.00 0.11 0.58 1.29 0.33 5.22 9.00 15.Density of 1.00 7.00 9.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 150

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria LatKrabang LatPhrao Min Buri Nong Chok 1.National

environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.56 4.58 9.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 3.Labor 0.78 6.11 9.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.33 2.48 5.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 transport 5. Government and 2.33 6.56 9.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 2.33 6.56 9.00 2.33 6.56 9.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 7.Infrastructure 1.00 3.77 7.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 8.Security 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 9.Information 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.11 2.33 5.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 management

11.Topography 0.33 0.80 3.00 1.00 4.01 7.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 12.Country 0.11 2.19 5.00 0.11 0.73 3.00 0.11 2.19 5.00 0.11 2.19 5.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 14.Competition 0.11 0.75 1.80 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 15.Density of 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 151

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Nong Khaem Pathum Wan Phasi Charoen Phaya Thai 1.National

environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.56 4.58 9.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 2.33 8.11 9.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 3.Labor 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.11 2.04 5.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.11 2.04 5.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.33 0.83 3.00 1.67 5.79 9.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 1.67 5.79 9.00 transport 5. Government and 2.33 6.56 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 2.33 6.56 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 2.26 5.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 7.Infrastructure 1.00 3.77 7.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 8.Security 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 1.67 4.26 7.00 management

11.Topography 0.33 0.80 3.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 2.33 7.22 9.00 12.Country 0.56 5.10 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.33 0.83 1.29 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.43 1.49 3.00 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 15.Density of 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.33 0.78 1.29 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 152

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Pom Prap Phra Khanong Phra Nakhon Prawet Sattru Phai 1.National

environment and 0.56 4.58 9.00 0.56 4.58 9.00 0.56 4.58 9.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 3.Labor 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.11 2.04 5.00 0.11 2.04 5.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 4.Connectivity to

multimodal 1.00 4.14 7.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 transport 5. Government and 1.67 5.10 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 2.33 6.56 9.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 0.75 3.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 7.Infrastructure 1.67 5.27 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 8.Security 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 1.67 4.26 7.00 management

11.Topography 0.33 0.80 3.00 0.33 0.80 3.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 0.33 0.80 3.00 12.Country 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.11 2.19 5.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.11 2.19 5.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.43 1.49 3.00 0.43 1.49 3.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 14.Competition 0.11 0.58 1.29 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.14 1.04 3.00 15.Density of 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 153

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Rat Burana Ratchathewi Sai Mai Samphanthawong 1.National environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.11 1.96 5.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.56 4.58 9.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 2.33 8.11 9.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 3.Labor 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.11 2.04 5.00 0.78 6.11 9.00 0.11 0.68 3.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.33 0.83 3.00 1.67 5.79 9.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 transport 5.Government 2.33 6.56 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 2.33 6.56 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 and regulations

6.Demand 1.00 3.77 7.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 7.Infrastructure 1.00 3.77 7.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 8.Security 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 management

11.Topography 1.67 5.62 9.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 2.33 7.22 9.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 12.Country 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.11 0.73 3.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.43 1.49 3.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.33 0.83 1.29 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 15.Density of 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.33 1.00 1.80 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 154

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Saphan Sung Sathon Suan Luang Taling Chan 1.National

environment and 0.56 4.58 9.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.56 4.58 9.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 1.00 4.51 7.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 3.Labor 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.33 0.83 3.00 1.00 4.14 7.00 2.33 7.44 9.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 transport 5. Government and 2.33 6.56 9.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 0.75 3.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 2.26 5.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 7.Infrastructure 1.00 3.77 7.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 8.Security 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.56 4.41 9.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.56 5.44 9.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 management

11.Topography 0.33 2.41 5.00 2.33 7.22 9.00 0.33 0.80 3.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 12.Country 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.33 3.64 7.00 0.11 0.73 3.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.33 1.06 1.80 1.00 7.44 9.00 0.60 2.48 9.00 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 15.Density of 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 1.00 7.00 9.00 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 155

TABLE F.18 Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS (cont.)

Normalized alternatives Criteria Thawi Wang Thon Buri Thung Khru Watthana Thonglang 1.National

environment and 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 0.33 3.27 7.00 its impact

2.Accessibility 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 0.33 0.90 3.00 3.Labor 0.11 2.04 5.00 0.56 4.75 9.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 4.Connectivity to

multimodal 0.33 2.48 5.00 0.33 2.48 5.00 0.33 0.83 3.00 1.00 4.14 7.00 transport 5. Government and 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.00 3.64 7.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 1.67 5.10 9.00 regulations

6.Demand 0.33 0.75 3.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 7.Infrastructure 1.00 3.77 7.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 1.00 3.77 7.00 1.67 5.27 9.00 8.Security 0.56 4.41 9.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 0.11 1.89 5.00 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.56 5.44 9.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 management

11.Topography 1.00 4.01 7.00 0.33 2.41 5.00 2.33 7.22 9.00 1.67 5.62 9.00 12.Country 0.56 5.10 9.00 0.11 0.73 3.00 0.33 3.64 7.00 0.33 3.64 7.00 planning

13.Cost 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 1.00 7.44 9.00 14.Competition 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 0.14 1.04 3.00 15.Density of 1.00 7.00 9.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.60 2.33 9.00 0.43 1.40 3.00 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 156

TABLE F.18 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives (cont.)

Alternatives Criteria FPIS ( A* ) FPNS ( A¯ ) Watthana Yan Nawa 1.National

environment and 0.11 1.96 5.00 0.11 1.96 5.00 9 9 9 0.11 0.11 0.11 its impact

2.Accessibility 2.33 8.11 9.00 0.33 2.70 5.00 9 9 9 0.33 0.33 0.33 3.Labor 0.33 3.40 7.00 0.33 3.40 7.00 9 9 9 0.11 0.11 0.11 4.Connectivity to multimodal 0.33 2.48 5.00 1.00 4.14 7.00 9 9 9 0.33 0.33 0.33 transport 5.Gove rnment and 1.00 3.64 7.00 0.33 2.19 5.00 9 9 9 0.33 0.33 0.33 regulations

6.Demand 1.67 5.27 9.00 0.33 0.75 3.00 9 9 9 0.33 0.33 0.33 7.Infrastructure 2.33 6.78 9.00 2.33 6.78 9.00 9 9 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.Security 0.33 3.15 7.00 0.33 3.15 7.00 9 9 9 0.11 0.11 0.11 9.Information 0.33 3.89 7.00 0.33 3.89 7.00 9 9 9 0.11 0.11 0.11 technology 10.Flooded 0.56 2.56 5.00 0.56 0.85 3.00 9 9 9 0.56 0.56 0.56 management

11.Topography 0.33 0.80 3.00 2.33 7.22 9.00 9 9 9 0.33 0.33 0.33 12.Country 0.78 6.56 9.00 0.78 6.56 9.00 9 9 9 0.11 0.11 0.11 planning

13.Cost 0.43 1.49 3.00 0.33 1.06 1.80 9 9 9 0.33 0.33 0.33 14.Competition 0.20 1.74 9.00 0.33 5.22 9.00 9 9 9 0.11 0.11 0.11 15.Density of 0.43 1.40 3.00 0.33 0.78 1.29 9 9 9 0.33 0.33 0.33 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 157

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives

Bang Bang Bon Bang Kapi Bang Khae Bang Khen Criteria KhoLaem

dv(A 1, A¯ ) dv(A 2, A¯ ) dv(A 3, A¯ ) dv(A 4, A¯ ) dv(A 5, A¯ ) 1.National environment 4.38 3.02 4.38 3.02 4.38 and its impact

2.Accessibility 1.57 3.02 1.57 1.57 3.02 3.Labor 4.41 5.80 6.20 6.20 4.41 4.Connectivity to multimodal 2.97 2.97 1.57 4.45 1.57 transport 5.Government 5.76 5.76 5.76 5.76 2.90 and regulations

6.Demand 2.91 2.91 2.91 1.56 2.91 7.Infrastructure 3.81 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 8.Security 5.71 3.00 5.71 3.00 4.35 9.Information 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 technology 10.Flooded 1.42 2.81 2.81 4.34 1.42 management

11.Topography 4.41 1.56 2.95 5.91 6.50 12.Country 6.35 4.47 3.07 3.07 6.35 planning

13.Cost 6.48 6.48 6.48 6.48 1.68 14.Competition 5.92 0.73 5.92 5.92 5.92 15.Density of 5.14 0.93 5.14 0.61 5.14 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 158

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Bang Khun Bang Na Bang Phlat Bang Rak Bang Sue Criteria Thian

dv(A 6, A¯ ) dv(A 7, A¯ ) dv(A 8, A¯ ) dv(A 9, A¯ ) dv(A 10 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 4.38 4.38 4.38 5.75 4.38 and its impact

2.Accessibility 1.57 1.57 3.02 6.82 4.56 3.Labor 6.20 4.41 4.41 3.03 5.80 4.Connectivity to multimodal 2.97 4.45 1.57 4.45 1.57 transport 5.Government 5.76 5.76 4.31 2.90 4.31 and regulations

6.Demand 4.35 4.35 2.91 4.35 2.91 7.Infrastructure 3.81 5.25 5.25 5.75 5.75 8.Security 5.71 4.35 5.71 4.35 3.00 9.Information 3.10 4.54 4.54 5.99 4.54 technology 10.Flooded 2.81 4.34 1.42 1.42 2.81 management

11.Topography 4.41 1.56 1.56 6.50 6.50 12.Country 5.89 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 planning

13.Cost 6.48 6.48 6.48 0.62 5.16 14.Competition 5.92 5.22 1.04 5.22 5.22 15.Density of 1.66 1.66 0.93 0.61 5.14 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 159

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Bangkok Bangkok Chom BuengKum Chatuchak Criteria Noi Yai Thong

dv(A11 , A¯ ) dv(A 12 , A¯ ) dv(A 13 , A¯ ) dv(A 14 , A¯ ) dv(A 15 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 4.38 5.75 4.38 3.02 4.38 and its impact

2.Accessibility 3.02 3.02 3.02 4.56 3.02 3.Labor 5.80 3.03 5.80 6.20 5.80 4.Connectivity to multimodal 2.97 1.57 1.57 6.57 2.97 transport 5.Government 4.31 4.31 5.76 4.31 6.27 and regulations

6.Demand 4.35 1.56 2.91 2.91 2.91 7.Infrastructure 5.75 5.75 5.25 5.25 5.25 8.Security 5.71 5.71 3.00 3.00 3.00 9.Information 5.99 4.54 4.54 5.99 4.54 technology 10.Flooded 1.42 1.42 2.81 2.81 2.81 management

11.Topography 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 12.Country 6.35 6.35 3.07 6.35 6.35 planning

13.Cost 6.48 6.48 6.48 5.16 6.48 14.Competition 1.04 5.92 5.92 1.04 5.92 15.Density of 5.14 6.32 0.93 0.61 5.14 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 160

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Don Huai Khan Na Din Daeng Dusit Criteria Mueang Khwang Yao

dv(A 16 , A¯ ) dv(A 17 , A¯ ) dv(A 18 , A¯ ) dv(A 19 , A¯ ) dv(A 20 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 4.38 4.38 5.75 4.38 4.38 and its impact

2.Accessibility 3.02 1.57 1.57 4.56 1.57 3.Labor 5.80 6.20 4.41 3.03 4.41 4.Connectivity to multimodal 1.57 5.96 2.97 5.96 1.57 transport 5.Government 2.90 5.76 2.90 2.90 6.27 and regulations

6.Demand 1.56 1.56 2.91 6.34 2.91 7.Infrastructure 5.75 5.25 5.75 5.75 3.81 8.Security 4.35 3.00 4.35 4.35 3.00 9.Information 4.54 4.54 5.99 4.54 4.54 technology 10.Flooded 2.81 1.42 4.34 4.34 2.81 management

11.Topography 4.41 2.95 2.95 1.56 4.41 12.Country 6.35 3.07 5.89 6.35 4.47 planning

13.Cost 1.68 6.48 1.68 1.68 6.48 14.Competition 1.75 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 15.Density of 0.93 0.93 1.66 1.66 0.93 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 161

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Khlong Sam Khlong San Khlong Toei Lak Si LatKrabang Criteria Wa

dv(A 21 , A¯ ) dv(A 22 , A¯ ) dv(A 23 , A¯ ) dv(A 24 , A¯ ) dv(A 25 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 4.38 4.38 3.02 4.38 4.38 and its impact

2.Accessibility 1.57 4.56 6.13 1.57 1.57 3.Labor 6.20 3.03 4.41 4.41 6.20 4.Connectivity to multimodal 1.57 1.57 4.45 2.97 2.97 transport 5.Government 6.27 2.90 4.31 6.27 6.27 and regulations

6.Demand 1.56 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 7.Infrastructure 3.81 5.75 5.75 5.25 3.81 8.Security 5.71 3.00 4.35 3.00 5.71 9.Information 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 5.99 technology 10.Flooded 2.81 1.42 5.93 1.42 1.42 management

11.Topography 1.56 2.95 6.50 6.50 1.56 12.Country 3.07 6.35 6.35 5.89 3.07 planning

13.Cost 6.48 5.16 1.68 6.48 6.48 14.Competition 5.92 1.75 0.73 5.92 1.04 15.Density of 6.32 1.66 1.66 5.14 5.14 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 162

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Nong Pathum LatPhrao Min Buri Nong Chok Criteria Khaem Wan

dv(A 26 , A¯ ) dv(A 27 , A¯ ) dv(A 28 , A¯ ) dv(A 29 , A¯ ) dv(A 30 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 4.38 4.38 5.75 4.38 4.38 and its impact

2.Accessibility 1.57 3.02 1.57 1.57 6.82 3.Labor 5.80 5.80 5.80 5.80 3.03 4.Connectivity to multimodal 2.97 1.57 1.57 1.57 5.96 transport 5.Government 5.76 6.27 6.27 6.27 2.90 and regulations

6.Demand 2.91 2.91 1.56 2.91 4.35 7.Infrastructure 5.25 3.81 3.81 3.81 5.75 8.Security 3.00 5.71 5.71 5.71 4.35 9.Information 4.54 3.10 4.54 4.54 4.54 technology 10.Flooded 1.42 1.42 1.42 2.81 2.81 management

11.Topography 4.41 2.95 2.95 1.56 2.95 12.Country 1.71 3.07 3.07 5.89 6.35 planning

13.Cost 6.48 6.48 6.48 6.48 0.62 14.Competition 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.22 15.Density of 1.66 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 163

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Phasi Phra Phra PomPrap Phaya Thai Criteria Charoen Khanong Nakhon SattruPhai

dv(A 31 , A¯ ) dv(A 32 , A¯ ) dv(A 33 , A¯ ) dv(A 34 , A¯ ) dv(A 35 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 5.75 4.38 5.75 5.75 5.75 and its impact

2.Accessibility 1.57 3.02 1.57 3.02 3.02 3.Labor 5.80 3.03 4.41 3.03 3.03 4.Connectivity to multimodal 1.57 5.96 4.45 1.57 1.57 transport 5.Government 6.27 2.90 5.76 2.90 2.90 and regulations

6.Demand 2.91 5.81 1.56 1.56 2.91 7.Infrastructure 5.25 5.75 5.25 5.75 5.75 8.Security 5.71 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 9.Information 5.99 4.54 4.54 5.99 5.99 technology 10.Flooded 1.42 4.34 2.81 1.42 1.42 management

11.Topography 2.95 6.50 1.56 1.56 2.95 12.Country 6.35 6.35 6.35 3.07 6.35 planning

13.Cost 6.48 1.68 6.48 1.68 1.68 14.Competition 5.92 5.22 0.73 5.22 5.22 15.Density of 5.14 0.61 1.66 1.66 5.14 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 164

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Samphan Prawet Rat Burana Ratchathewi Sai Mai Criteria thawong

dv(A 36 , A¯ ) dv(A 37 , A¯ ) dv(A 38 , A¯ ) dv(A 39 , A¯ ) dv(A 40 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 4.38 4.38 3.02 4.38 5.75 and its impact

2.Accessibility 1.57 1.57 6.82 1.57 3.02 3.Labor 5.80 4.41 3.03 6.20 1.70 4.Connectivity to multimodal 1.57 1.57 5.96 1.57 1.57 transport 5.Government 6.27 6.27 2.90 6.27 2.90 and regulations

6.Demand 1.56 4.35 6.34 2.91 2.91 7.Infrastructure 3.81 3.81 5.75 3.81 5.75 8.Security 3.00 3.00 4.35 3.00 4.35 9.Information 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 technology 10.Flooded 4.34 1.42 2.81 2.81 1.42 management

11.Topography 1.56 5.91 2.95 6.50 2.95 12.Country 3.07 6.35 6.35 1.71 6.35 planning

13.Cost 6.48 6.48 1.68 6.48 0.62 14.Competition 1.75 5.92 5.22 5.92 5.22 15.Density of 5.14 5.14 0.93 5.14 5.14 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 165

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Saphan Taling Thawi Sathon Suan Luang Criteria Sung Chan Watthana

dv(A 41 , A¯ ) dv(A 42 , A¯ ) dv(A 43 , A¯ ) dv(A 44 , A¯ ) dv(A 45 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 5.75 4.38 5.75 4.38 4.38 and its impact

2.Accessibility 1.57 4.56 1.57 1.57 1.57 3.Labor 4.41 4.41 4.41 4.41 3.03 4.Connectivity to multimodal 1.57 4.45 6.57 2.97 2.97 transport 5.Government 6.27 2.90 5.76 5.76 5.76 and regulations

6.Demand 1.56 2.91 2.91 1.56 1.56 7.Infrastructure 3.81 5.75 3.81 3.81 3.81 8.Security 3.00 4.35 3.00 5.71 5.71 9.Information 4.54 4.54 4.54 5.99 4.54 technology 10.Flooded 1.42 2.81 1.42 2.81 1.42 management

11.Topography 2.95 6.50 1.56 2.95 4.41 12.Country 6.35 6.35 4.47 1.71 5.89 planning

13.Cost 6.48 0.95 6.48 5.16 6.48 14.Competition 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.22 5.92 15.Density of 5.14 1.66 1.66 6.32 6.32 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 166

TABLE F.19 Distances dv(Ai..A¯ ) for alternatives (cont.)

Thung Wang Thon Buri Watthana Yan Nawa Criteria Khru Thonglang

dv(A 46 , A¯ ) dv(A 47 , A¯ ) dv(A 48 , A¯ ) dv(A 49 , A¯ ) dv(A 50 , A¯ ) 1.National environment 4.38 4.38 4.38 3.02 3.02 and its impact

2.Accessibility 3.02 1.57 1.57 6.82 3.02 3.Labor 5.80 4.41 4.41 4.41 4.41 4.Connectivity to multimodal 2.97 1.57 4.45 2.97 4.45 transport 5.Government 4.31 5.76 5.76 4.31 2.90 and regulations

6.Demand 4.35 1.56 1.56 5.81 1.56 7.Infrastructure 5.75 3.81 5.25 5.75 5.75 8.Security 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.35 4.35 9.Information 5.99 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 technology 10.Flooded 1.42 2.81 1.42 2.81 1.42 management

11.Topography 2.95 6.50 5.91 1.56 6.50 12.Country 1.71 4.47 4.47 6.35 6.35 planning

13.Cost 6.48 6.48 6.48 1.68 0.95 14.Competition 5.22 5.92 1.75 5.22 5.92 15.Density of 1.66 5.14 1.66 1.66 0.61 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 167

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives

Bang Bang Bon Bang Kapi Bang Khae Bang Khen Criteria KhoLaem

dv(A 1, A*) dv(A 2, A*) dv(A 3, A*) dv(A 4, A*) dv(A 5, A*) 1.National environment 6.11 6.94 6.11 6.94 6.11 and its impact

2.Accessibility 7.67 6.60 7.67 7.67 6.60 3.Labor 6.07 5.46 5.03 5.03 6.07 4.Connectivity to multimodal 6.67 6.67 7.70 5.53 7.70 transport 5.Government 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 6.77 and regulations

6.Demand 6.75 6.75 6.75 7.73 6.75 7.Infrastructure 5.64 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 8.Security 5.55 6.97 5.55 6.97 6.15 9.Information 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 technology 10.Flooded 7.61 6.55 6.55 5.17 7.61 management

11.Topography 5.56 7.71 6.70 4.66 3.98 12.Country 4.95 5.99 6.87 6.87 4.95 planning

13.Cost 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 7.44 14.Competition 5.46 8.35 5.46 5.46 5.46 15.Density of 6.19 7.98 6.19 8.21 6.19 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 168

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives (cont.)

Bang Khun Bang Na Bang Phlat Bang Rak Bang Sue Criteria Thian

dv(A 6, A*) dv(A 7, A*) dv(A 8, A*) dv(A 9, A*) dv(A 10 , A*) 1.National environment 6.11 6.11 6.11 5.50 6.11 and its impact

2.Accessibility 7.67 7.67 6.60 3.88 5.42 3.Labor 5.03 6.07 6.07 6.92 5.46 4.Connectivity to multimodal 6.67 5.53 7.70 5.53 7.70 transport 5.Government 4.80 4.80 5.68 6.77 5.68 and regulations

6.Demand 5.64 5.64 6.75 5.64 6.75 7.Infrastructure 5.64 4.75 4.75 4.06 4.06 8.Security 5.55 6.15 5.55 6.15 6.97 9.Information 6.82 5.92 5.92 5.29 5.92 technology 10.Flooded 6.55 5.17 7.61 7.61 6.55 management

11.Topography 5.56 7.71 7.71 3.98 3.98 12.Country 5.37 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 planning

13.Cost 4.71 4.71 4.71 8.19 6.14 14.Competition 5.46 6.59 8.14 6.59 6.59 15.Density of 7.47 7.47 7.98 8.21 6.19 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 169

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A *) for alternatives (cont.)

Bangkok Bangkok Chom BuengKum Chatuchak Criteria Noi Yai Thong

dv(A 11 , A*) dv(A 12 , A*) dv(A 13 , A*) dv(A 14 , A*) dv(A 15 , A*) 1.National environment 6.11 5.50 6.11 6.94 6.11 and its impact

2.Accessibility 6.60 6.60 6.60 5.42 6.60 3.Labor 5.46 6.92 5.46 5.03 5.46 4.Connectivity to multimodal 6.67 7.70 7.70 3.95 6.67 transport 5.Government 5.68 5.68 4.80 5.68 4.10 and regulations

6.Demand 5.64 7.73 6.75 6.75 6.75 7.Infrastructure 4.06 4.06 4.75 4.75 4.75 8.Security 5.55 5.55 6.97 6.97 6.97 9.Information 5.29 5.92 5.92 5.29 5.92 technology 10.Flooded 7.61 7.61 6.55 6.55 6.55 management

11.Topography 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70 12.Country 4.95 4.95 6.87 4.95 4.95 planning

13.Cost 4.71 4.71 4.71 6.14 4.71 14.Competition 8.14 5.46 5.46 8.14 5.46 15.Density of 6.19 4.76 7.98 8.21 6.19 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 170

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives (cont.)

Don Huai Khan Na Din Daeng Dusit Criteria Mueang Khwang Yao

dv(A 16 , A*) dv(A 17 , A*) dv(A 18 , A*) dv(A 19 , A*) dv(A 20 , A*) 1.National environment 6.11 6.11 5.50 6.11 6.11 and its impact

2.Accessibility 6.60 7.67 7.67 5.42 7.67 3.Labor 5.46 5.03 6.07 6.92 6.07 4.Connectivity to multimodal 7.70 4.62 6.67 4.62 7.70 transport 5.Government 6.77 4.80 6.77 6.77 4.10 and regulations

6.Demand 7.73 7.73 6.75 4.06 6.75 7.Infrastructure 4.06 4.75 4.06 4.06 5.64 8.Security 6.15 6.97 6.15 6.15 6.97 9.Information 5.92 5.92 5.29 5.92 5.92 technology 10.Flooded 6.55 7.61 5.17 5.17 6.55 management

11.Topography 5.56 6.70 6.70 7.71 5.56 12.Country 4.95 6.87 5.37 4.95 5.99 planning

13.Cost 7.44 4.71 7.44 7.44 4.71 14.Competition 7.70 5.46 5.46 5.46 5.46 15.Density of 7.98 7.98 7.47 7.47 7.98 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 171

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives (cont.)

Khlong Sam Khlong San Khlong Toei Lak Si LatKrabang Criteria Wa

dv(A 21 , A*) dv(A 22 , A*) dv(A 23 , A*) dv(A 24 , A*) dv(A 25 , A*) 1.National environment 6.11 6.11 6.94 6.11 6.11 and its impact

2.Accessibility 7.67 5.42 4.51 7.67 7.67 3.Labor 5.03 6.92 6.07 6.07 5.03 4.Connectivity to multimodal 7.70 7.70 5.53 6.67 6.67 transport 5.Government 4.10 6.77 5.68 4.10 4.10 and regulations

6.Demand 7.73 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 7.Infrastructure 5.64 4.06 4.06 4.75 5.64 8.Security 5.55 6.97 6.15 6.97 5.55 9.Information 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.29 technology 10.Flooded 6.55 7.61 4.00 7.61 7.61 management

11.Topography 7.71 6.70 3.98 3.98 7.71 12.Country 6.87 4.95 4.95 5.37 6.87 planning

13.Cost 4.71 6.14 7.44 4.71 4.71 14.Competition 5.46 7.70 8.35 5.46 8.14 15.Density of 4.76 7.47 7.47 6.19 6.19 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 172

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives (cont.)

Nong Pathum LatPhrao Min Buri Nong Chok Criteria Khaem Wan

dv(A 26 , A*) dv(A 27 , A*) dv(A 28 , A*) dv(A 29 , A*) dv(A 30 , A*) 1.National environment 6.11 6.11 5.50 6.11 6.11 and its impact

2.Accessibility 7.67 6.60 7.67 7.67 3.88 3.Labor 5.46 5.46 5.46 5.46 6.92 4.Connectivity to multimodal 6.67 7.70 7.70 7.70 4.62 transport 5.Government 4.80 4.10 4.10 4.10 6.77 and regulations

6.Demand 6.75 6.75 7.73 6.75 5.64 7.Infrastructure 4.75 5.64 5.64 5.64 4.06 8.Security 6.97 5.55 5.55 5.55 6.15 9.Information 5.92 6.82 5.92 5.92 5.92 technology 10.Flooded 7.61 7.61 7.61 6.55 6.55 management

11.Topography 5.56 6.70 6.70 7.71 6.70 12.Country 7.82 6.87 6.87 5.37 4.95 planning

13.Cost 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 8.19 14.Competition 5.46 5.46 5.46 5.46 6.59 15.Density of 7.47 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 173

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives (cont.)

Phasi Phra Phra PomPrap Phaya Thai Criteria Charoen Khanong Nakhon SattruPhai

dv(A 31 , A*) dv(A 32 , A*) dv(A 33 , A*) dv(A 34 , A*) dv(A 35 , A*) 1.National environment 5.50 6.11 5.50 5.50 5.50 and its impact

2.Accessibility 7.67 6.60 7.67 6.60 6.60 3.Labor 5.46 6.92 6.07 6.92 6.92 4.Connectivity to multimodal 7.70 4.62 5.53 7.70 7.70 transport 5.Government 4.10 6.77 4.80 6.77 6.77 and regulations

6.Demand 6.75 4.75 7.73 7.73 6.75 7.Infrastructure 4.75 4.06 4.75 4.06 4.06 8.Security 5.55 6.15 6.15 6.15 6.15 9.Information 5.29 5.92 5.92 5.29 5.29 technology 10.Flooded 7.61 5.17 6.55 7.61 7.61 management

11.Topography 6.70 3.98 7.71 7.71 6.70 12.Country 4.95 4.95 4.95 6.87 4.95 planning

13.Cost 4.71 7.44 4.71 7.44 7.44 14.Competition 5.46 6.59 8.35 6.59 6.59 15.Density of 6.19 8.21 7.47 7.47 6.19 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 174

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives (cont.)

Samphan Prawet Rat Burana Ratchathewi Sai Mai Criteria thawong

dv(A 36 , A*) dv(A 37 , A*) dv(A 38 , A*) dv(A 39 , A*) dv(A 40 , A*) 1.National environment 6.11 6.11 6.94 6.11 5.50 and its impact

2.Accessibility 7.67 7.67 3.88 7.67 6.60 3.Labor 5.46 6.07 6.92 5.03 7.84 4.Connectivity to multimodal 7.70 7.70 4.62 7.70 7.70 transport 5.Government 4.10 4.10 6.77 4.10 6.77 and regulations

6.Demand 7.73 5.64 4.06 6.75 6.75 7.Infrastructure 5.64 5.64 4.06 5.64 4.06 8.Security 6.97 6.97 6.15 6.97 6.15 9.Information 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 technology 10.Flooded 5.17 7.61 6.55 6.55 7.61 management

11.Topography 7.71 4.66 6.70 3.98 6.70 12.Country 6.87 4.95 4.95 7.82 4.95 planning

13.Cost 4.71 4.71 7.44 4.71 8.19 14.Competition 7.70 5.46 6.59 5.46 6.59 15.Density of 6.19 6.19 7.98 6.19 6.19 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 175

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives (cont.)

Saphan Taling Thawi Sathon Suan Luang Criteria Sung Chan Watthana

dv(A 41 , A*) dv(A 42 , A*) dv(A 43 , A*) dv(A 44 , A*) dv(A 45 , A*) 1.National environment 5.50 6.11 5.50 6.11 6.11 and its impact

2.Accessibility 7.67 5.42 7.67 7.67 7.67 3.Labor 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.92 4.Connectivity to multimodal 7.70 5.53 3.95 6.67 6.67 transport 5.Government 4.10 6.77 4.80 4.80 4.80 and regulations

6.Demand 7.73 6.75 6.75 7.73 7.73 7.Infrastructure 5.64 4.06 5.64 5.64 5.64 8.Security 6.97 6.15 6.97 5.55 5.55 9.Information 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.29 5.92 technology 10.Flooded 7.61 6.55 7.61 6.55 7.61 management

11.Topography 6.70 3.98 7.71 6.70 5.56 12.Country 4.95 4.95 5.99 7.82 5.37 planning

13.Cost 4.71 7.96 4.71 6.14 4.71 14.Competition 5.46 5.46 5.46 6.59 5.46 15.Density of 6.19 7.47 7.47 4.76 4.76 traffic

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 176

TABLE F.20 Distances dv(Ai . A* ) for alternatives (cont.)

Thung Wang Thon Buri Watthana Yan Nawa Criteria Khru Thonglang

dv(A 46 , A*) dv(A 47 , A*) dv(A 48 , A*) dv(A 49 , A*) dv(A 50 , A*) 1.National environment 6.11 6.11 6.11 6.94 6.94 and its impact

2.Accessibility 6.60 7.67 7.67 3.88 6.60 3.Labor 5.46 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 4.Connectivity to multimodal 6.67 7.70 5.53 6.67 5.53 transport 5.Government 5.68 4.80 4.80 5.68 6.77 and regulations

6.Demand 5.64 7.73 7.73 4.75 7.73 7.Infrastructure 4.06 5.64 4.75 4.06 4.06 8.Security 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.15 6.15 9.Information 5.29 5.92 5.92 5.92 5.92 technology 10.Flooded 7.61 6.55 7.61 6.55 7.61 management

11.Topography 6.70 3.98 4.66 7.71 3.98 12.Country 7.82 5.99 5.99 4.95 4.95 planning

13.Cost 4.71 4.71 4.71 7.44 7.96 14.Competition 6.59 5.46 7.70 6.59 5.46 15.Density of 7.47 6.19 7.47 7.47 8.21 traffic

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 177

TABLE F.21 Closeness coefficients (CC i) of the 50 districts

Alternatives di¯ di* CC i Order

Bang Bon A1 65.79 89.7 0.42 6

Bang Kapi A2 53.26 96.2 0.36 47

Bang Khae A3 64.26 90.8 0.41 17

Bang Khen A4 61.68 90.4 0.41 22

Bang KhoLaem A5 60.33 92.4 0.39 30

Bang Khun Thian A6 65.03 89.0 0.42 7

Bang Na A7 64.67 89.2 0.42 11

Bang Phlat A8 53.89 96.2 0.36 45

Bang Rak A9 64.10 89.3 0.42 13

Bang Sue A10 67.99 88.5 0.43 3

Bangkok Noi A11 65.65 89.4 0.42 5

Bangkok Yai A12 64.69 89.8 0.42 12

BuengKum A13 58.39 93.3 0.38 36

Chatuchak A14 60.75 91.5 0.4 27

Chom Thong A15 67.79 87.9 0.44 2

Din Daeng A16 51.79 96.7 0.35 48

Don Mueang A17 59.00 92.9 0.39 34

Dusit A18 59.04 92.5 0.39 33

Huai Khwang A19 63.32 88.22 0.42 14

Khan Na Yao A20 57.50 93.18 0.38 38

Khlong Sam Wa A21 61.78 91.51 0.40 24

Khlong San A22 51.93 97.17 0.35 49

Khlong Toei A23 62.71 87.79 0.42 15

Lak Si A24 66.65 88.33 0.43 4

LatKrabang A25 58.53 94.04 0.38 37

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 178

TABLE F.21 Closeness coefficients ( CC i) of the 50 districts (cont.)

Alternatives di¯ di* CC i Order

LatPhrao A26 57.8 93.7 0.38 39

Min Buri A27 61.5 92.2 0.4 26

Nong Chok A28 61.5 92.8 0.4 28

Nong Khaem A29 64.4 90.9 0.41 16

Pathum Wan A30 65.2 89.2 0.42 8

Phasi Charoen A31 69.1 88.4 0.44 1

Phaya Thai A32 64.4 88.2 0.42 9

Phra Khanong A33 57.2 93.9 0.38 40

Phra Nakhon A34 48.5 100 0.33 50

Pom Prap Sattru Phai A35 58 95.2 0.38 41

Prawet A36 54.8 95.6 0.36 44

Rat Burana A37 65.1 89.4 0.42 10

Ratchathewi A38 62.7 89.5 0.41 20

Sai Mai A39 62.8 90.6 0.41 21

Saphan Sung A40 54.2 97.5 0.36 46

Saphan Sung A41 60.7 92.9 0.4 29

Sathon A42 62.4 89.1 0.41 19

Suan Luang A43 59.9 92.2 0.39 31

Taling Chan A44 60.3 94.1 0.39 32

Thawi Watthana A45 63.8 90.5 0.41 18

Thon Buri A46 59 93.4 0.39 35

Thung Khru A47 61.9 91.5 0.4 23

Wang Thonglang A48 56.6 93.7 0.38 42

Watthana A49 61.3 90.8 0.4 25

Yan Nawa A50 55.7 93.9 0.37 43

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 179

APPENDIX G THE RESULT OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Yan Nawa 0.328 Watthana 0.356 Wang Thonglang 0.333 Thung Khru 0.359 Thon Buri 0.345 Thawi Watthana 0.367 Taling Chan 0.353 Suan Luang 0.348 Sathon 0.362 Saphan Sung 0.354 Samphanthawong 0.324 Sai Mai 0.362 Ratchathewi 0.360 Rat Burana 0.374 Prawet 0.325 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.343 Phra Nakhon 0.296 Phra Khanong 0.336 Phaya Thai 0.370 Phasi Charoen 0.393 Pathum Wan 0.374 Nong Khaem 0.372 Nong Chok 0.359 Min Buri 0.358 LatPhrao 0.339 LatKrabang 0.343 Lak Si 0.380 Khlong Toei 0.356 Khlong San 0.322 Khlong Sam Wa 0.358 Khan Na Yao 0.331 Huai Khwang 0.365 Dusit 0.348 Don Mueang 0.344 Din Daeng 0.311 Chom Thong 0.386 Chatuchak 0.353 BuengKum 0.341 Bangkok Yai 0.370 Bangkok Noi 0.377 Bang Sue 0.389 Bang Rak 0.367 Bang Phlat 0.320 Bang Na 0.373 Bang Khun Thian 0.375 Bang KhoLaem 0.354 Bang Khen 0.356 Bang Khae 0.371 Bang Kapi 0.315 Bang Bon 0.379 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42

Figure G.1 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (all criteria are very low) Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 180

Yan Nawa 0.358 Watthana 0.384 Wang Thonglang 0.360 Thung Khru 0.388 Thon Buri 0.372 Thawi Watthana 0.398 Taling Chan 0.379 Suan Luang 0.378 Sathon 0.394 Saphan Sung 0.383 Samphanthawong 0.348 Sai Mai 0.393 Ratchathewi 0.390 Rat Burana 0.405 Prawet 0.350 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.368 Phra Nakhon 0.318 Phra Khanong 0.364 Phaya Thai 0.400 Phasi Charoen 0.425 Pathum Wan 0.402 Nong Khaem 0.402 Nong Chok 0.387 Min Buri 0.387 LatPhrao 0.368 LatKrabang 0.370 Lak Si 0.412 Khlong Toei 0.386 Khlong San 0.349 Khlong Sam Wa 0.390 Khan Na Yao 0.360 Huai Khwang 0.398 Dusit 0.377 Don Mueang 0.374 Din Daeng 0.337 Chom Thong 0.418 Chatuchak 0.381 BuengKum 0.371 Bangkok Yai 0.403 Bangkok Noi 0.407 Bang Sue 0.417 Bang Rak 0.397 Bang Phlat 0.347 Bang Na 0.402 Bang Khun Thian 0.407 Bang KhoLaem 0.382 Bang Khen 0.387 Bang Khae 0.401 Bang Kapi 0.342 Bang Bon 0.409

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44

Figure G.2 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (all criteria are low) Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 181

Yan Nawa 0.373 Watthana 0.402 Wang Thonglang 0.372 Thung Khru 0.403 Thon Buri 0.385 Thawi Watthana 0.416 Taling Chan 0.390 Suan Luang 0.394 Sathon 0.414 Saphan Sung 0.399 Samphanthawong 0.357 Sai Mai 0.412 Ratchathewi 0.410 Rat Burana 0.425 Prawet 0.360 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.381 Phra Nakhon 0.323 Phra Khanong 0.379 Phaya Thai 0.422 Phasi Charoen 0.450 Pathum Wan 0.421 Nong Khaem 0.420 Nong Chok 0.403 Min Buri 0.402 LatPhrao 0.381 LatKrabang 0.386 Lak Si 0.432 Khlong Toei 0.403 Khlong San 0.362 Khlong Sam Wa 0.409 Khan Na Yao 0.371 Huai Khwang 0.417 Dusit 0.393 Don Mueang 0.389 Din Daeng 0.349 Chom Thong 0.439 Chatuchak 0.399 BuengKum 0.383 Bangkok Yai 0.424 Bangkok Noi 0.428 Bang Sue 0.437 Bang Rak 0.420 Bang Phlat 0.359 Bang Na 0.421 Bang Khun Thian 0.428 Bang KhoLaem 0.398 Bang Khen 0.404 Bang Khae 0.419 Bang Kapi 0.350 Bang Bon 0.428

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48

Figure G.3 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (all criteria are medium) Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 182

Yan Nawa 0.384 Watthana 0.414 Wang Thonglang 0.380 Thung Khru 0.413 Thon Buri 0.393 Thawi Watthana 0.427 Taling Chan 0.398 Suan Luang 0.404 Sathon 0.428 Saphan Sung 0.410 Samphanthawong 0.364 Sai Mai 0.424 Ratchathewi 0.423 Rat Burana 0.438 Prawet 0.367 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.389 Phra Nakhon 0.327 Phra Khanong 0.389 Phaya Thai 0.436 Phasi Charoen 0.465 Pathum Wan 0.434 Nong Khaem 0.432 Nong Chok 0.414 Min Buri 0.411 LatPhrao 0.389 LatKrabang 0.395 Lak Si 0.446 Khlong Toei 0.415 Khlong San 0.371 Khlong Sam Wa 0.421 Khan Na Yao 0.378 Huai Khwang 0.430 Dusit 0.403 Don Mueang 0.399 Din Daeng 0.356 Chom Thong 0.452 Chatuchak 0.411 BuengKum 0.391 Bangkok Yai 0.437 Bangkok Noi 0.441 Bang Sue 0.450 Bang Rak 0.436 Bang Phlat 0.366 Bang Na 0.433 Bang Khun Thian 0.441 Bang KhoLaem 0.409 Bang Khen 0.416 Bang Khae 0.430 Bang Kapi 0.356 Bang Bon 0.441

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48

Figure G.4 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (all criteria are high) Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 183

Yan Nawa 0.420 Watthana 0.453 Wang Thonglang 0.412 Thung Khru 0.447 Thon Buri 0.424 Thawi Watthana 0.465 Taling Chan 0.427 Suan Luang 0.440 Sathon 0.472 Saphan Sung 0.445 Samphanthawong 0.389 Sai Mai 0.462 Ratchathewi 0.466 Rat Burana 0.479 Prawet 0.393 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.418 Phra Nakhon 0.346 Phra Khanong 0.424 Phaya Thai 0.480 Phasi Charoen 0.513 Pathum Wan 0.475 Nong Khaem 0.471 Nong Chok 0.449 Min Buri 0.445 LatPhrao 0.420 LatKrabang 0.430 Lak Si 0.488 Khlong Toei 0.454 Khlong San 0.402 Khlong Sam Wa 0.461 Khan Na Yao 0.407 Huai Khwang 0.473 Dusit 0.439 Don Mueang 0.435 Din Daeng 0.386 Chom Thong 0.494 Chatuchak 0.451 BuengKum 0.422 Bangkok Yai 0.479 Bangkok Noi 0.485 Bang Sue 0.491 Bang Rak 0.483 Bang Phlat 0.397 Bang Na 0.473 Bang Khun Thian 0.484 Bang KhoLaem 0.444 Bang Khen 0.454 Bang Khae 0.468 Bang Kapi 0.382 Bang Bon 0.481

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54

Figure G.5 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (all criteria are very high) Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 184

Yan Nawa 0.328 Watthana 0.352 Wang Thonglang 0.355 Thung Khru 0.378 Thon Buri 0.365 Thawi Watthana 0.385 Taling Chan 0.373 Suan Luang 0.392 Sathon 0.381 Saphan Sung 0.397 Samphanthawong 0.370 Sai Mai 0.381 Ratchathewi 0.356 Rat Burana 0.392 Prawet 0.348 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.387 Phra Nakhon 0.346 Phra Khanong 0.382 Phaya Thai 0.389 Phasi Charoen 0.432 Pathum Wan 0.391 Nong Khaem 0.390 Nong Chok 0.401 Min Buri 0.377 LatPhrao 0.361 LatKrabang 0.364 Lak Si 0.397 Khlong Toei 0.361 Khlong San 0.337 Khlong Sam Wa 0.378 Khan Na Yao 0.345 Huai Khwang 0.384 Dusit 0.392 Don Mueang 0.365 Din Daeng 0.336 Chom Thong 0.403 Chatuchak 0.349 BuengKum 0.363 Bangkok Yai 0.411 Bangkok Noi 0.394 Bang Sue 0.405 Bang Rak 0.409 Bang Phlat 0.343 Bang Na 0.391 Bang Khun Thian 0.393 Bang KhoLaem 0.374 Bang Khen 0.352 Bang Khae 0.389 Bang Kapi 0.316 Bang Bon 0.396

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.6 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of national environment and its impactcriterion) Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 185

Yan Nawa 0.328 Watthana 0.416 Wang Thonglang 0.314 Thung Khru 0.337 Thon Buri 0.342 Thawi Watthana 0.344 Taling Chan 0.332 Suan Luang 0.328 Sathon 0.381 Saphan Sung 0.333 Samphanthawong 0.324 Sai Mai 0.340 Ratchathewi 0.420 Rat Burana 0.351 Prawet 0.306 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.341 Phra Nakhon 0.298 Phra Khanong 0.316 Phaya Thai 0.365 Phasi Charoen 0.369 Pathum Wan 0.431 Nong Khaem 0.349 Nong Chok 0.337 Min Buri 0.354 LatPhrao 0.319 LatKrabang 0.323 Lak Si 0.356 Khlong Toei 0.381 Khlong San 0.332 Khlong Sam Wa 0.336 Khan Na Yao 0.317 Huai Khwang 0.369 Dusit 0.327 Don Mueang 0.324 Din Daeng 0.312 Chom Thong 0.380 Chatuchak 0.373 BuengKum 0.339 Bangkok Yai 0.365 Bangkok Noi 0.371 Bang Sue 0.405 Bang Rak 0.426 Bang Phlat 0.320 Bang Na 0.350 Bang Khun Thian 0.352 Bang KhoLaem 0.350 Bang Khen 0.334 Bang Khae 0.349 Bang Kapi 0.316 Bang Bon 0.355

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.7 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of accessibility criterion)

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 186

Yan Nawa 0.351 Watthana 0.376 Wang Thonglang 0.355 Thung Khru 0.378 Thon Buri 0.389 Thawi Watthana 0.362 Taling Chan 0.373 Suan Luang 0.369 Sathon 0.381 Saphan Sung 0.374 Samphanthawong 0.305 Sai Mai 0.421 Ratchathewi 0.356 Rat Burana 0.392 Prawet 0.371 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.341 Phra Nakhon 0.298 Phra Khanong 0.358 Phaya Thai 0.365 Phasi Charoen 0.432 Pathum Wan 0.368 Nong Khaem 0.413 Nong Chok 0.401 Min Buri 0.400 LatPhrao 0.384 LatKrabang 0.404 Lak Si 0.413 Khlong Toei 0.375 Khlong San 0.344 Khlong Sam Wa 0.418 Khan Na Yao 0.361 Huai Khwang 0.370 Dusit 0.368 Don Mueang 0.405 Din Daeng 0.360 Chom Thong 0.425 Chatuchak 0.413 BuengKum 0.386 Bangkok Yai 0.365 Bangkok Noi 0.417 Bang Sue 0.428 Bang Rak 0.362 Bang Phlat 0.343 Bang Na 0.391 Bang Khun Thian 0.433 Bang KhoLaem 0.374 Bang Khen 0.416 Bang Khae 0.429 Bang Kapi 0.363 Bang Bon 0.396

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.8 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of labor criterion) Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 187

Yan Nawa 0.351 Watthana 0.352 Wang Thonglang 0.355 Thung Khru 0.337 Thon Buri 0.342 Thawi Watthana 0.362 Taling Chan 0.350 Suan Luang 0.409 Sathon 0.381 Saphan Sung 0.333 Samphanthawong 0.305 Sai Mai 0.340 Ratchathewi 0.403 Rat Burana 0.351 Prawet 0.306 PomPrapSattruPhai 0.323 Phra Nakhon 0.280 Phra Khanong 0.358 Phaya Thai 0.412 Phasi Charoen 0.369 Pathum Wan 0.414 Nong Khaem 0.349 Nong Chok 0.337 Min Buri 0.336 LatPhrao 0.337 LatKrabang 0.341 Lak Si 0.374 Khlong Toei 0.361 Khlong San 0.316 Khlong Sam Wa 0.336 Khan Na Yao 0.317 Huai Khwang 0.389 Dusit 0.345 Don Mueang 0.388 Din Daeng 0.294 Chom Thong 0.380 Chatuchak 0.413 BuengKum 0.321 Bangkok Yai 0.347 Bangkok Noi 0.371 Bang Sue 0.365 Bang Rak 0.386 Bang Phlat 0.301 Bang Na 0.391 Bang Khun Thian 0.370 Bang KhoLaem 0.332 Bang Khen 0.376 Bang Khae 0.349 Bang Kapi 0.316 Bang Bon 0.373

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44

Figure G.9 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of connectivity to multimodal transport criterion) Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 188

Yan Nawa 0.328 Watthana 0.376 Wang Thonglang 0.379 Thung Khru 0.401 Thon Buri 0.365 Thawi Watthana 0.408 Taling Chan 0.396 Suan Luang 0.392 Sathon 0.358 Saphan Sung 0.414 Samphanthawong 0.324 Sai Mai 0.421 Ratchathewi 0.356 Rat Burana 0.432 Prawet 0.388 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.341 Phra Nakhon 0.298 Phra Khanong 0.382 Phaya Thai 0.365 Phasi Charoen 0.448 Pathum Wan 0.368 Nong Khaem 0.429 Nong Chok 0.418 Min Buri 0.417 LatPhrao 0.384 LatKrabang 0.404 Lak Si 0.437 Khlong Toei 0.380 Khlong San 0.313 Khlong Sam Wa 0.417 Khan Na Yao 0.400 Huai Khwang 0.361 Dusit 0.345 Don Mueang 0.388 Din Daeng 0.312 Chom Thong 0.442 Chatuchak 0.373 BuengKum 0.386 Bangkok Yai 0.388 Bangkok Noi 0.394 Bang Sue 0.405 Bang Rak 0.362 Bang Phlat 0.343 Bang Na 0.414 Bang Khun Thian 0.416 Bang KhoLaem 0.350 Bang Khen 0.399 Bang Khae 0.412 Bang Kapi 0.363 Bang Bon 0.419

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48

Figure G.10 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight government and regulations criterion) Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 189

Yan Nawa 0.309 Watthana 0.399 Wang Thonglang 0.314 Thung Khru 0.337 Thon Buri 0.365 Thawi Watthana 0.344 Taling Chan 0.332 Suan Luang 0.346 Sathon 0.358 Saphan Sung 0.333 Samphanthawong 0.324 Sai Mai 0.358 Ratchathewi 0.420 Rat Burana 0.392 Prawet 0.306 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.341 Phra Nakhon 0.280 Phra Khanong 0.316 Phaya Thai 0.412 Phasi Charoen 0.386 Pathum Wan 0.391 Nong Khaem 0.367 Nong Chok 0.337 Min Buri 0.354 LatPhrao 0.337 LatKrabang 0.341 Lak Si 0.374 Khlong Toei 0.356 Khlong San 0.313 Khlong Sam Wa 0.335 Khan Na Yao 0.336 Huai Khwang 0.425 Dusit 0.345 Don Mueang 0.324 Din Daeng 0.294 Chom Thong 0.380 Chatuchak 0.349 BuengKum 0.339 Bangkok Yai 0.347 Bangkok Noi 0.394 Bang Sue 0.382 Bang Rak 0.386 Bang Phlat 0.320 Bang Na 0.391 Bang Khun Thian 0.393 Bang KhoLaem 0.350 Bang Khen 0.334 Bang Khae 0.366 Bang Kapi 0.316 Bang Bon 0.373

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44

Figure G.11 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of demand criterion) Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 190

Yan Nawa 0.377 Watthana 0.402 Wang Thonglang 0.364 Thung Khru 0.365 Thon Buri 0.391 Thawi Watthana 0.372 Taling Chan 0.360 Suan Luang 0.356 Sathon 0.407 Saphan Sung 0.360 Samphanthawong 0.373 Sai Mai 0.368 Ratchathewi 0.406 Rat Burana 0.379 Prawet 0.334 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.390 Phra Nakhon 0.348 Phra Khanong 0.367 Phaya Thai 0.415 Phasi Charoen 0.419 Pathum Wan 0.417 Nong Khaem 0.377 Nong Chok 0.365 Min Buri 0.364 LatPhrao 0.370 LatKrabang 0.351 Lak Si 0.407 Khlong Toei 0.406 Khlong San 0.362 Khlong Sam Wa 0.363 Khan Na Yao 0.345 Huai Khwang 0.411 Dusit 0.395 Don Mueang 0.374 Din Daeng 0.362 Chom Thong 0.412 Chatuchak 0.382 BuengKum 0.372 Bangkok Yai 0.414 Bangkok Noi 0.420 Bang Sue 0.431 Bang Rak 0.412 Bang Phlat 0.352 Bang Na 0.400 Bang Khun Thian 0.380 Bang KhoLaem 0.383 Bang Khen 0.385 Bang Khae 0.399 Bang Kapi 0.348 Bang Bon 0.383

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.12 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of infrastructure criterion)

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 191

Yan Nawa 0.351 Watthana 0.376 Wang Thonglang 0.332 Thung Khru 0.355 Thon Buri 0.342 Thawi Watthana 0.408 Taling Chan 0.396 Suan Luang 0.346 Sathon 0.381 Saphan Sung 0.351 Samphanthawong 0.347 Sai Mai 0.358 Ratchathewi 0.379 Rat Burana 0.369 Prawet 0.324 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.364 Phra Nakhon 0.322 Phra Khanong 0.358 Phaya Thai 0.389 Phasi Charoen 0.432 Pathum Wan 0.391 Nong Khaem 0.413 Nong Chok 0.401 Min Buri 0.400 LatPhrao 0.337 LatKrabang 0.387 Lak Si 0.374 Khlong Toei 0.380 Khlong San 0.313 Khlong Sam Wa 0.400 Khan Na Yao 0.336 Huai Khwang 0.385 Dusit 0.368 Don Mueang 0.342 Din Daeng 0.336 Chom Thong 0.380 Chatuchak 0.349 BuengKum 0.339 Bangkok Yai 0.411 Bangkok Noi 0.417 Bang Sue 0.382 Bang Rak 0.386 Bang Phlat 0.367 Bang Na 0.391 Bang Khun Thian 0.416 Bang KhoLaem 0.374 Bang Khen 0.352 Bang Khae 0.412 Bang Kapi 0.316 Bang Bon 0.419

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.13 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of security criterion)

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 192

Yan Nawa 0.351 Watthana 0.376 Wang Thonglang 0.355 Thung Khru 0.378 Thon Buri 0.389 Thawi Watthana 0.385 Taling Chan 0.396 Suan Luang 0.369 Sathon 0.381 Saphan Sung 0.374 Samphanthawong 0.347 Sai Mai 0.381 Ratchathewi 0.379 Rat Burana 0.392 Prawet 0.348 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.387 Phra Nakhon 0.346 Phra Khanong 0.358 Phaya Thai 0.389 Phasi Charoen 0.432 Pathum Wan 0.391 Nong Khaem 0.390 Nong Chok 0.378 Min Buri 0.354 LatPhrao 0.361 LatKrabang 0.387 Lak Si 0.397 Khlong Toei 0.380 Khlong San 0.336 Khlong Sam Wa 0.377 Khan Na Yao 0.359 Huai Khwang 0.385 Dusit 0.392 Don Mueang 0.365 Din Daeng 0.336 Chom Thong 0.403 Chatuchak 0.396 BuengKum 0.363 Bangkok Yai 0.388 Bangkok Noi 0.417 Bang Sue 0.405 Bang Rak 0.409 Bang Phlat 0.343 Bang Na 0.391 Bang Khun Thian 0.370 Bang KhoLaem 0.374 Bang Khen 0.376 Bang Khae 0.389 Bang Kapi 0.339 Bang Bon 0.396

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.14 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of information technology criterion)

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 193

Yan Nawa 0.309 Watthana 0.352 Wang Thonglang 0.314 Thung Khru 0.355 Thon Buri 0.324 Thawi Watthana 0.344 Taling Chan 0.350 Suan Luang 0.328 Sathon 0.358 Saphan Sung 0.333 Samphanthawong 0.305 Sai Mai 0.358 Ratchathewi 0.356 Rat Burana 0.351 Prawet 0.348 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.323 Phra Nakhon 0.280 Phra Khanong 0.335 Phaya Thai 0.389 Phasi Charoen 0.369 Pathum Wan 0.368 Nong Khaem 0.367 Nong Chok 0.337 Min Buri 0.336 LatPhrao 0.319 LatKrabang 0.323 Lak Si 0.357 Khlong Toei 0.403 Khlong San 0.294 Khlong Sam Wa 0.353 Khan Na Yao 0.336 Huai Khwang 0.385 Dusit 0.368 Don Mueang 0.324 Din Daeng 0.312 Chom Thong 0.380 Chatuchak 0.349 BuengKum 0.339 Bangkok Yai 0.347 Bangkok Noi 0.353 Bang Sue 0.382 Bang Rak 0.344 Bang Phlat 0.301 Bang Na 0.391 Bang Khun Thian 0.370 Bang KhoLaem 0.332 Bang Khen 0.376 Bang Khae 0.366 Bang Kapi 0.316 Bang Bon 0.355

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42

Figure G.15 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of flooded management criterion)

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 194

Yan Nawa 0.392 Watthana 0.334 Wang Thonglang 0.379 Thung Khru 0.418 Thon Buri 0.342 Thawi Watthana 0.385 Taling Chan 0.350 Suan Luang 0.328 Sathon 0.421 Saphan Sung 0.351 Samphanthawong 0.324 Sai Mai 0.421 Ratchathewi 0.356 Rat Burana 0.415 Prawet 0.306 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.341 Phra Nakhon 0.280 Phra Khanong 0.316 Phaya Thai 0.428 Phasi Charoen 0.386 Pathum Wan 0.368 Nong Khaem 0.349 Nong Chok 0.355 Min Buri 0.354 LatPhrao 0.361 LatKrabang 0.323 Lak Si 0.437 Khlong Toei 0.420 Khlong San 0.313 Khlong Sam Wa 0.335 Khan Na Yao 0.359 Huai Khwang 0.343 Dusit 0.345 Don Mueang 0.342 Din Daeng 0.336 Chom Thong 0.380 Chatuchak 0.349 BuengKum 0.339 Bangkok Yai 0.365 Bangkok Noi 0.371 Bang Sue 0.444 Bang Rak 0.426 Bang Phlat 0.301 Bang Na 0.350 Bang Khun Thian 0.393 Bang KhoLaem 0.414 Bang Khen 0.399 Bang Khae 0.366 Bang Kapi 0.297 Bang Bon 0.396

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.16 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of topography criterion) Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 195

Yan Nawa 0.392 Watthana 0.416 Wang Thonglang 0.355 Thung Khru 0.378 Thon Buri 0.324 Thawi Watthana 0.408 Taling Chan 0.332 Suan Luang 0.369 Sathon 0.421 Saphan Sung 0.414 Samphanthawong 0.387 Sai Mai 0.340 Ratchathewi 0.420 Rat Burana 0.432 Prawet 0.324 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.404 Phra Nakhon 0.298 Phra Khanong 0.398 Phaya Thai 0.428 Phasi Charoen 0.448 Pathum Wan 0.431 Nong Khaem 0.413 Nong Chok 0.355 Min Buri 0.354 LatPhrao 0.319 LatKrabang 0.341 Lak Si 0.420 Khlong Toei 0.420 Khlong San 0.377 Khlong Sam Wa 0.353 Khan Na Yao 0.359 Huai Khwang 0.425 Dusit 0.392 Don Mueang 0.342 Din Daeng 0.377 Chom Thong 0.442 Chatuchak 0.413 BuengKum 0.339 Bangkok Yai 0.428 Bangkok Noi 0.433 Bang Sue 0.444 Bang Rak 0.426 Bang Phlat 0.384 Bang Na 0.430 Bang Khun Thian 0.416 Bang KhoLaem 0.414 Bang Khen 0.352 Bang Khae 0.366 Bang Kapi 0.339 Bang Bon 0.435

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48

Figure G.17 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of country planning criterion) Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 196

Yan Nawa 0.303 Watthana 0.337 Wang Thonglang 0.380 Thung Khru 0.402 Thon Buri 0.390 Thawi Watthana 0.409 Taling Chan 0.369 Suan Luang 0.393 Sathon 0.334 Saphan Sung 0.398 Samphanthawong 0.296 Sai Mai 0.405 Ratchathewi 0.341 Rat Burana 0.416 Prawet 0.373 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.326 Phra Nakhon 0.283 Phra Khanong 0.383 Phaya Thai 0.351 Phasi Charoen 0.432 Pathum Wan 0.341 Nong Khaem 0.413 Nong Chok 0.402 Min Buri 0.401 LatPhrao 0.385 LatKrabang 0.389 Lak Si 0.421 Khlong Toei 0.342 Khlong San 0.333 Khlong Sam Wa 0.401 Khan Na Yao 0.384 Huai Khwang 0.347 Dusit 0.330 Don Mueang 0.390 Din Daeng 0.297 Chom Thong 0.426 Chatuchak 0.369 BuengKum 0.387 Bangkok Yai 0.412 Bangkok Noi 0.418 Bang Sue 0.400 Bang Rak 0.335 Bang Phlat 0.369 Bang Na 0.414 Bang Khun Thian 0.417 Bang KhoLaem 0.336 Bang Khen 0.400 Bang Khae 0.413 Bang Kapi 0.365 Bang Bon 0.419

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.18 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of cost criterion)

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 197

Yan Nawa 0.377 Watthana 0.371 Wang Thonglang 0.317 Thung Khru 0.402 Thon Buri 0.362 Thawi Watthana 0.409 Taling Chan 0.369 Suan Luang 0.393 Sathon 0.405 Saphan Sung 0.398 Samphanthawong 0.343 Sai Mai 0.405 Ratchathewi 0.375 Rat Burana 0.416 Prawet 0.309 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.360 Phra Nakhon 0.319 Phra Khanong 0.306 Phaya Thai 0.384 Phasi Charoen 0.432 Pathum Wan 0.387 Nong Khaem 0.413 Nong Chok 0.402 Min Buri 0.401 LatPhrao 0.385 LatKrabang 0.317 Lak Si 0.421 Khlong Toei 0.329 Khlong San 0.297 Khlong Sam Wa 0.401 Khan Na Yao 0.384 Huai Khwang 0.409 Dusit 0.393 Don Mueang 0.390 Din Daeng 0.297 Chom Thong 0.426 Chatuchak 0.326 BuengKum 0.387 Bangkok Yai 0.412 Bangkok Noi 0.348 Bang Sue 0.400 Bang Rak 0.381 Bang Phlat 0.295 Bang Na 0.386 Bang Khun Thian 0.417 Bang KhoLaem 0.398 Bang Khen 0.400 Bang Khae 0.413 Bang Kapi 0.287 Bang Bon 0.419

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46

Figure G.19 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of competition criterion)

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 198

Yan Nawa 0.299 Watthana 0.337 Wang Thonglang 0.317 Thung Khru 0.374 Thon Buri 0.327 Thawi Watthana 0.409 Taling Chan 0.397 Suan Luang 0.331 Sathon 0.343 Saphan Sung 0.370 Samphanthawong 0.343 Sai Mai 0.377 Ratchathewi 0.332 Rat Burana 0.388 Prawet 0.344 Pom Prap Sattru Phai 0.360 Phra Nakhon 0.283 Phra Khanong 0.320 Phaya Thai 0.338 Phasi Charoen 0.405 Pathum Wan 0.387 Nong Khaem 0.386 Nong Chok 0.374 Min Buri 0.373 LatPhrao 0.323 LatKrabang 0.360 Lak Si 0.393 Khlong Toei 0.342 Khlong San 0.297 Khlong Sam Wa 0.401 Khan Na Yao 0.312 Huai Khwang 0.347 Dusit 0.330 Don Mueang 0.318 Din Daeng 0.288 Chom Thong 0.398 Chatuchak 0.322 BuengKum 0.316 Bangkok Yai 0.412 Bangkok Noi 0.390 Bang Sue 0.400 Bang Rak 0.335 Bang Phlat 0.295 Bang Na 0.353 Bang Khun Thian 0.355 Bang KhoLaem 0.370 Bang Khen 0.325 Bang Khae 0.385 Bang Kapi 0.291 Bang Bon 0.392

0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44

Figure G.20 The closeness coefficient (CC i) of 50 districts for sensitivity analysis (highest weight of density of traffic criterion)

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 199

Table G.1 The result of equal weight all criteria

Sensitivity analysis Order Very low Low Medium High Very high 1 Phasi Charoen Phasi Charoen Phasi Charoen Phasi Charoen Phasi Charoen 2 Bang Sue Chom Thong Chom Thong Chom Thong Chom Thong 3 Chom Thong Bang Sue Bang Sue Bang Sue Bang Sue 4 Lak Si Lak Si Lak Si Lak Si Lak Si 5 Bang Bon Bang Bon Bang Bon Bangkok Noi Bangkok Noi Bang Khun Bang Khun Bang Khun 6 Bangkok Noi Bangkok Noi Thian Thian Thian Bang Khun Bang Khun 7 Bangkok Noi Bang Bon Bang Rak Thian Thian 8 Rat Burana Rat Burana Rat Burana Rat Burana Bang Bon 9 Pathum Wan Bangkok Yai Bangkok Yai Bangkok Yai Phaya Thai 10 Bang Na Pathum Wan Phaya Thai Bang Rak Huai Khwang 11 Nong Khaem Bang Na Pathum Wan Phaya Thai Rat Burana 12 Bang Khae Nong Khaem Bang Na Pathum Wan Bangkok Yai 13 Phaya Thai Bang Khae Bang Rak Huai Khwang Pathum Wan 14 Bangkok Yai Phaya Thai Nong Khaem Bang Na Khlong Toei Thawi 15 Bang Rak Huai Khwang Nong Khaem Bang Na Watthana Thawi 16 Huai Khwang Bang Khae Bang Khae Sathon Watthana Thawi 17 Huai Khwang Bang Rak Sathon Nong Khaem Watthana 18 Sai Mai Sathon Sathon Khlong Toei Bang Khae 19 Sathon Sai Mai Khlong Toei Thawi Watthana Ratchathewi Thawi 20 Khlong Toei Khlong Toei Sai Mai Sai Mai Watthana 21 Ratchathewi Ratchathewi Ratchathewi Ratchathewi Sai Mai Khlong Sam Khlong Sam Khlong Sam 22 Thung Khru Khlong Sam Wa Wa Wa Wa 23 Nong Chok Thung Khru Bang Khen Bang Khen Bang Khen 24 Min Buri Min Buri Nong Chok Watthana Watthana Khlong Sam 25 Nong Chok Thung Khru Nong Chok Chatuchak Wa

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 200

Table G.1 The result of equal weight all criteria (cont.)

Sensitivity analysis Order Very low Low Medium High Very high 26 Bang Khen Bang Khen Watthana Thung Khru Nong Chok 27 Watthana Watthana Min Buri Min Buri Thung Khru 28 Saphan Sung Saphan Sung Chatuchak Chatuchak Saphan Sung Bang Bang 29 Saphan Sung Saphan Sung Min Buri KhoLaem KhoLaem Bang Bang Bang 30 Taling Chan Chatuchak KhoLaem KhoLaem KhoLaem 31 Chatuchak Taling Chan Suan Luang Suan Luang Suan Luang 32 Suan Luang Suan Luang Dusit Dusit Dusit 33 Dusit Dusit Taling Chan Don Mueang Don Mueang 34 Thon Buri Don Mueang Don Mueang Taling Chan LatKrabang 35 Don Mueang Thon Buri LatKrabang LatKrabang Taling Chan Pom Prap 36 BuengKum Thon Buri Thon Buri Phra Khanong Sattru Phai 37 LatKrabang LatKrabang BuengKum BuengKum Thon Buri Pom Prap 38 BuengKum LatPhrao Phra Khanong BuengKum Sattru Phai Pom Prap 39 LatPhrao LatPhrao Khan Na Yao Khan Na Yao Sattru Phai 40 Khan Na Yao Khan Na Yao Khan Na Yao LatPhrao LatPhrao Pom Prap 41 Phra Khanong Phra Khanong Phra Khanong Yan Nawa Sattru Phai Wang Wang Pom Prap 42 Yan Nawa Yan Nawa Thonglang Thonglang Sattru Phai Wang Wang Wang 43 Yan Nawa Yan Nawa Thonglang Thonglang Thonglang 44 Prawet Prawet Prawet Prawet Bang Phlat Samphantha Samphantha 45 Bang Phlat Bang Phlat Prawet wong wong Samphantha Samphantha Samphantha 46 Bang Phlat Bang Phlat wong wong wong 47 Bang Kapi Bang Kapi Bang Kapi Din Daeng Din Daeng 48 Khlong San Din Daeng Din Daeng Bang Kapi Bang Kapi 49 Din Daeng Khlong San Khlong San Khlong San Khlong San 50 Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 201

Table G.2 The result of highest weight national environment and its impact, accessibility, labor and connectivity to multimodal transport criteria

Sensitivity analysis Order National Connectivity to environment and Accessibility Labor multimodal its impact transport 1 Phasi Charoen Pathum Wan Bang Khun Thian Pathum Wan 2 Bangkok Yai Bang Rak Phasi Charoen Chatuchak 3 Bang Rak Ratchathewi Bang Khae Phaya Thai 4 Bang Sue Watthana Bang Sue Suan Luang 5 Chom Thong Bang Sue Chom Thong Huai Khwang 6 Nong Chok Khlong Toei Sai Mai Ratchathewi 7 Lak Si Huai Khwang Bangkok Noi Bang Na 8 Saphan Sung Sathon Khlong Sam Wa Don Mueang 9 Bang Bon Chom Thong Bang Khen Bang Rak 10 Bangkok Noi Chatuchak Chatuchak Sathon 11 Bang Khun Thian Bangkok Noi Nong Khaem Khlong Toei 12 Suan Luang Phasi Charoen Don Mueang Chom Thong 13 Rat Burana Phaya Thai LatKrabang Bang Khen 14 Dusit Bangkok Yai Nong Chok Lak Si 15 Pathum Wan Lak Si Min Buri Bang Bon 16 Bang Na Bang Bon Lak Si Bangkok Noi 17 Nong Khaem Min Buri Bang Bon Bang Khun Thian 18 Bang Khae Bang Khun Thian Rat Burana Phasi Charoen 19 Phaya Thai Rat Burana Bang Na Bang Sue Pom Prap Sattru 20 Bang KhoLaem Thon Buri Thawi Watthana Phai 21 Thawi Watthana Bang Na BuengKum Phra Khanong 22 Huai Khwang Nong Khaem LatPhrao Wang Thonglang 23 Phra Khanong Bang Khae Sathon Watthana 24 Sai Mai Thawi Watthana Khlong Toei Yan Nawa 25 Sathon Thon Buri Thung Khru Rat Burana Pom Prap Sattru 26 Thung Khru Watthana Taling Chan Phai

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 202

Table G.2 The result of highest weight National environment and its impact, accessibility, labor and connectivity to multimodal transport criteria (cont.)

Sensitivity analysis Order National Connectivity to environment and Accessibility Labor multimodal its impact transport 27 Min Buri Sai Mai Saphan Sung Nong Khaem 28 Khlong Sam Wa BuengKum Bang KhoLaem Bang Khae 29 Bang KhoLaem Thung Khru Taling Chan Bangkok Yai 30 Taling Chan Nong Chok Prawet Dusit Samphantha 31 Khlong San Suan Luang Thon Buri wong 32 Thon Buri Khlong Sam Wa Dusit LatKrabang 33 Don Mueang Bang Khen Pathum Wan Sai Mai 34 LatKrabang Saphan Sung Phaya Thai LatPhrao 35 BuengKum Taling Chan Bangkok Yai Thung Khru 36 LatPhrao Yan Nawa Bang Kapi Nong Chok 37 Khan Na Yao Suan Luang Bang Rak Min Buri 38 Khlong Toei Dusit Thawi Watthana Khlong Sam Wa Samphantha 39 Ratchathewi Huai Khwang Saphan Sung wong 40 Wang Thonglang Don Mueang Din Daeng Bang KhoLaem Pom Prap Sattru 41 Bang Khen LatKrabang Khan Na Yao Phai 42 Watthana Bang Phlat Phra Khanong BuengKum 43 Chatuchak LatPhrao Ratchathewi Khan Na Yao 44 Prawet Khan Na Yao Wang Thonglang Bang Kapi 45 Phra Nakhon Phra Khanong Yan Nawa Prawet Samphantha 46 Bang Phlat Bang Kapi Bang Phlat wong Pom Prap Sattru 47 Khlong San Wang Thonglang Bang Phlat Phai 48 Din Daeng Din Daeng Khlong San Khlong San Samphantha 49 Yan Nawa Prawet Din Daeng wong 50 Bang Kapi Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 203

Table G.3 The result of highest weight government and regulations, demand, infrastructure and security criteria

Sensitivity analysis Order Government and Demand Infrastructure Security regulations 1 Phasi Charoen Huai Khwang Bang Sue Phasi Charoen 2 Chom Thong Ratchathewi Bangkok Noi Bang Bon 3 Lak Si Phaya Thai Phasi Charoen Bangkok Noi 4 Rat Burana Watthana Pathum Wan Bang Khun Thian 5 Nong Khaem Bangkok Noi Phaya Thai Nong Khaem 6 Sai Mai Bang Khun Thian Bangkok Yai Bang Khae 7 Bang Bon Rat Burana Chom Thong Bangkok Yai 8 Nong Chok Pathum Wan Bang Rak Thawi Watthana 9 Min Buri Bang Na Huai Khwang Nong Chok 10 Khlong Sam Wa Phasi Charoen Sathon Min Buri 11 Bang Khun Thian Bang Rak Lak Si Khlong Sam Wa 12 Saphan Sung Bang Sue Khlong Toei Taling Chan 13 Bang Na Chom Thong Ratchathewi Pathum Wan 14 Bang Khae Lak Si Watthana Bang Na 15 Thawi Watthana Bang Bon Bang Na Phaya Thai 16 Bang Sue Nong Khaem Bang Khae LatKrabang 17 LatKrabang Bang Khae Dusit Bang Rak 18 Thung Khru Thon Buri Thon Buri Huai Khwang Pom Prap Sattru 19 Khan Na Yao Sai Mai Bang Sue Phai 20 Bang Khen Sathon Bang Khen Sathon 21 Taling Chan Khlong Toei Bang Bon Khlong Toei 22 Bangkok Noi Min Buri Bang KhoLaem Chom Thong 23 Suan Luang Bang KhoLaem Chatuchak Ratchathewi 24 Don Mueang Chatuchak Bang Khun Thian Watthana 25 Prawet Bangkok Yai Rat Burana Lak Si

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 204

Table G.3 The result of highest weight government and regulations, demand, infrastructure and security criteria (cont.)

Sensitivity analysis Order Government and Demand Infrastructure Security regulations 26 Bangkok Yai Suan Luang Yan Nawa Bang KhoLaem 27 BuengKum Dusit Nong Khaem Rat Burana 28 LatPhrao Thawi Watthana Don Mueang Dusit Pom Prap Sattru Samphantha 29 Phra Khanong Bang Phlat Phai wong Pom Prap Sattru 30 Khlong Toei LatKrabang Thawi Watthana Phai 31 Wang Thonglang BuengKum BuengKum Sai Mai 32 Watthana LatPhrao LatPhrao Phra Khanong 33 Chatuchak Thung Khru Sai Mai Thung Khru 34 Pathum Wan Nong Chok Phra Khanong Bang Khen 35 Phaya Thai Khan Na Yao Thung Khru Yan Nawa 36 Thon Buri Khlong Sam Wa Nong Chok Saphan Sung 37 Bang Kapi Bang Khen Wang Thonglang Chatuchak Samphantha 38 Bang Rak Saphan Sung Min Buri wong 39 Huai Khwang Taling Chan Khlong Sam Wa Suan Luang Samphantha 40 Sathon Khlong San Thon Buri wong 41 Ratchathewi Don Mueang Din Daeng Don Mueang 42 Bang KhoLaem Bang Phlat Saphan Sung BuengKum 43 Dusit Phra Khanong Taling Chan LatPhrao 44 Bang Phlat Bang Kapi Suan Luang Din Daeng Pom Prap Sattru 45 Wang Thonglang Bang Phlat Khan Na Yao Phai 46 Yan Nawa Khlong San LatKrabang Wang Thonglang Samphantha 47 Yan Nawa Bang Kapi Prawet wong 48 Khlong San Prawet Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon 49 Din Daeng Din Daeng Khan Na Yao Bang Kapi 50 Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon Prawet Khlong San

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 205

Table G.4 The result of highest weight information technology, flooded management, topography and country planning criteria

Sensitivity analysis Order Information Flooded Topography Country technology management planning 1 Phasi Charoen Khlong Toei Bang Sue Phasi Charoen 2 Bangkok Noi Bang Na Lak Si Bang Sue 3 Bang Rak Phaya Thai Phaya Thai Chom Thong 4 Bang Sue Huai Khwang Bang Rak Bang Bon 5 Chom Thong Bang Sue Sathon Bangkok Noi 6 Lak Si Chom Thong Sai Mai Rat Burana 7 Chatuchak Bang Khen Khlong Toei Pathum Wan 8 Taling Chan Bang Khun Thian Thung Khru Bang Na 9 Bang Bon Phasi Charoen Rat Burana Phaya Thai 10 Rat Burana Dusit Bang KhoLaem Bangkok Yai 11 Dusit Pathum Wan Bang Khen Bang Rak 12 Pathum Wan Nong Khaem Bang Bon Huai Khwang 13 Bang Na Bang Khae Bang Khun Thian Sathon 14 Nong Khaem Sai Mai Yan Nawa Khlong Toei 15 Bang Khae Sathon Phasi Charoen Lak Si 16 Thon Buri Lak Si Thawi Watthana Ratchathewi 17 Phaya Thai Ratchathewi Chom Thong Bang Khun Thian 18 Bangkok Yai Bang Bon Wang Thonglang Watthana 19 LatKrabang Thung Khru Bangkok Noi Bang KhoLaem Pom Prap Sattru 20 Khlong Sam Wa Pathum Wan Saphan Sung Phai 21 Thawi Watthana Bangkok Noi Bang Khae Chatuchak 22 Huai Khwang Watthana Bangkok Yai Nong Khaem 23 Sai Mai Rat Burana LatPhrao Thawi Watthana Pom Prap Sattru 24 Sathon Taling Chan Khan Na Yao Phai 25 Khlong Toei Chatuchak Ratchathewi Phra Khanong 26 Ratchathewi Prawet Nong Chok Yan Nawa Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 206

Table G.4 The result of highest weight information technology, flooded management, topography and country planning criteria (cont.)

Sensitivity analysis Order Information Flooded Topography Country technology management planning 27 Thung Khru Bangkok Yai Min Buri Dusit Samphantha 28 Nong Chok Bang Rak Saphan Sung wong 29 Khlong Sam Wa Thawi Watthana Taling Chan Bang Phlat 30 Bang Khen BuengKum Bang Na Thung Khru 31 Watthana Nong Chok Chatuchak Din Daeng 32 Saphan Sung Min Buri Nong Khaem Khlong San 33 Bang KhoLaem Khan Na Yao Dusit Suan Luang 34 Bang Khun Thian Phra Khanong Huai Khwang Bang Khae 35 Suan Luang Saphan Sung Thon Buri Khan Na Yao 36 Don Mueang Bang KhoLaem Don Mueang Wang Thonglang Pom Prap Sattru 37 BuengKum Suan Luang Nong Chok Phai 38 LatPhrao Thon Buri BuengKum Min Buri 39 Khan Na Yao Don Mueang Din Daeng Khlong Sam Wa Pom Prap Sattru 40 Phra Khanong Khlong Sam Wa Bang Khen Phai 41 Wang Thonglang LatKrabang Watthana Don Mueang 42 Min Buri LatPhrao Suan Luang LatKrabang Samphantha 43 Yan Nawa Bang Kapi Sai Mai wong 44 Prawet Wang Thonglang LatKrabang BuengKum Samphantha 45 Din Daeng Phra Khanong Bang Kapi wong 46 Phra Nakhon Yan Nawa Khlong San Taling Chan Samphantha 47 Bang Phlat Prawet Prawet wong 48 Bang Kapi Bang Phlat Bang Phlat Thon Buri 49 Khlong San Khlong San Bang Kapi LatPhrao 50 Din Daeng Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon Phra Nakhon

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 207

Table G.5 The result of highest weight cost, competition and density of traffic criteria

Sensitivity analysis Order Cost Competition Density of traffic 1 Phasi Charoen Phasi Charoen Bangkok Yai 2 Chom Thong Chom Thong Thawi Watthana 3 Lak Si Lak Si Phasi Charoen 4 Bang Bon Bang Bon Khlong Sam Wa 5 Bangkok Noi Bang Khun Thian Bang Sue 6 Bang Khun Thian Rat Burana Chom Thong 7 Rat Burana Nong Khaem Taling Chan 8 Bang Na Bang Khae Lak Si 9 Nong Khaem Bangkok Yai Bang Bon 10 Bang Khae Huai Khwang Bangkok Noi 11 Bangkok Yai Thawi Watthana Rat Burana 12 Thawi Watthana Sai Mai Pathum Wan 13 Sai Mai Sathon Nong Khaem 14 Thung Khru Thung Khru Bang Khae 15 Nong Chok Nong Chok Sai Mai 16 Min Buri Min Buri Thung Khru 17 Khlong Sam Wa Khlong Sam Wa Nong Chok 18 Bang Sue Bang Sue Min Buri 19 Bang Khen Bang Khen Saphan Sung 20 Saphan Sung Saphan Sung Bang KhoLaem 21 Suan Luang Bang KhoLaem LatKrabang 22 Thon Buri Suan Luang Pom Prap Sattru Phai 23 Don Mueang Dusit Bang Khun Thian 24 LatKrabang Don Mueang Bang Na 25 BuengKum BuengKum Huai Khwang

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 208

Table G.5 The result of highest weight cost, competition and density of traffic criteria (cont.)

Sensitivity analysis Order Cost Competition Density of traffic 26 LatPhrao Pathum Wan Prawet 27 Khan Na Yao Bang Na Samphanthawong 28 Phra Khanong LatPhrao Sathon 29 Wang Thonglang Phaya Thai Khlong Toei 30 Prawet Khan Na Yao Phaya Thai 31 Taling Chan Bang Rak Watthana 32 Bang Phlat Yan Nawa Bang Rak 33 Chatuchak Ratchathewi Ratchathewi 34 Bang Kapi Watthana Suan Luang 35 Phaya Thai Taling Chan Dusit 36 Huai Khwang Thon Buri Thon Buri 37 Khlong Toei Pom Prap Sattru Phai Bang Khen 38 Ratchathewi Bangkok Noi LatPhrao Samphantha 39 Pathum Wan Chatuchak wong 40 Watthana Khlong Toei Phra Khanong 41 Bang KhoLaem Chatuchak Don Mueang 42 Bang Rak Phra Nakhon Wang Thonglang 43 Sathon LatKrabang BuengKum 44 Khlong San Wang Thonglang Khan Na Yao 45 Dusit Prawet Yan Nawa 46 Pom Prap Sattru Phai Phra Khanong Khlong San 47 Yan Nawa Khlong San Bang Phlat 48 Din Daeng Din Daeng Bang Kapi 49 Samphanthawong Bang Phlat Din Daeng 50 Phra Nakhon Bang Kapi Phra Nakhon

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 209

APPENDIX H 2012 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SUBMITTED PAPER

H.1 ACCEPTANCE LETTER

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 210

H.2 FULL PAPER

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 211

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 212

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 213

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 214

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 215

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 216

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 217

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Appendices / 218

Fac. of Grad. Studies, Mahidol Univ. M.Eng.(Industrial Engineering) / 219

Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol Biography / 220

BIOGRAPHY

NAME Miss Thummamateta Treevirotmongkol DATE OF BIRTH 14 July 1986 PLACE OF BIRTH Bangkok, Thailand INSTITUTIONS ATTENDED King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, 2005-2009 Bachelor of Engineering (Materials Engineering) Mahidol University, 2010-2013 Master of Engineering (Industrial Engineering) HOME ADDRESS 2/136, Soi Bang Waek 64, Bang Waek, Phasi Charoen, Bangkok, 10160 Tel.: 087-092-4790 E-mail: [email protected] PUBLICATION / PRESENTATION The 13 th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference 2012 (APIEMS 2012)